Our Vampire Government

The federal government’s primary role is to protect the people and their private property; instead it is draining the life-blood out of the real economy at a staggering velocity.  In 2011 the Federal Government spent $1.3 trillion more than it took in to pay for programs that it cannot afford and has no Constitutional authority to do.  In 2012 our national debt will climb to a record $16.8 trillion dollars and the Obama Administration has promised to maintain this spending and borrowing spree indefinitely.

Each year the Federal Government spends billions of dollars on boondoggle projects such as President Obama’s failed “stimulus” program, annual aid to foreign dictators, and subsidies for special interest businesses like Solyndra.  Each year the Federal Government drains billions of dollars from the real economy through its inefficient and corrupt monopoly agencies like the department of education that has yet to educate one child and the National Labor Board that does its best to make American Workers uncompetitive in the global market.  When unions and/or politically-favored private sector companies like General Motors get into trouble billions of dollars in bailout money (i.e. your tax dollars) are exchanged for votes.

Right now the Federal Government monopoly entity called the Post Office is in the red to the tune of at least $10 billion. No problem, more tax money will be drained vampire-like from your wallet to bail out its failure.  The corrupt and failed government monopoly entities Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are bleeding billions of tax payer dollars but they have been nationalized by Mr. Obama and thus bailed out.  The Federal Government has had its teeth in the retirement business for decades in the form of the so-called Social Security Program.  Social Security and Medicare are government-run monopolies.  Together these programs have amassed trillions in unfunded liabilities and are unsustainable.  These and other “entitlement” programs are sucking the life-blood out of the economy (i.e. your wallet) at record speed.

In 2014 a new, far-reaching law, known popularly as Obama Care, will take effect. Obama Care will give government vast control over the already heavily socialized US Health Care Industry.  With this massive bite into what’s left of the private health care and health insurance industries the Federal Government has laid the groundwork for a socialist style take over of this huge section of our economy.

The primary role of the Federal Government is to protect the people and their private property. In 2011 the Federal Government spent $1.3 trillion more than it took in to pay for programs that it cannot afford and has no Constitutional authority to do. Rather than protecting us our Federal Government has become a vampire bent on draining the life-blood out of the real economy.

By Mark Van Schuyver

Self-Interest Vs. Selflessness

Proponents of two distinctly opposite world views are at war with one another here in the United States and all around the planet.  These two world views can be summarized as follows.  1) Selflessness is good.  2) Self-Interest is good.  Which world view is better?  Let’s contrast the two before we decide.

World View Number One, based on selflessness, postulates that the collective is sovereign.  A good citizen of a selfless society lives by the following rules.  1) Others are worth more than I am therefore I am worth less.  2) The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one (i.e. me) therefore I must surrender all that I am and all that I have to support the many, 3) The fruits of my labor belong to the many, and therefore the many have the right to take from me by force that which I have, 4) I am worth less. Only the collective has worth therefore the collective has the right to harm me or steal from me and from everyone else in the collective.  5) I am part of the collective therefore the world owes me a living and if anything goes wrong in my life it’s not my fault.

World View Number Two, based on Self-Interest, postulates that the individual person is sovereign.  The individual is sovereign and therefore other individuals are also sovereign.  A good citizen of a self-interested society lives by the following rules.  1) I have worth. I am not worth less than you.  2) I am the sovereign of me and you are the sovereign of you.  3) My freedom ends where your nose begins. 4) My body and the fruits of my labor belong to me and your body and the fruits of your labor belong to you and no one has the right harm me or you or to steal from me or from you or from anyone else.  5) I am a sovereign individual responsible for me and accountable for my actions.

Self-Interest, is often confused with Selfishness.  But selfishness is quite different from self-interest.  The selfish person believes that ripping people off is okay.  Selfish folk have no problem taking something from others by force or by trickery.  Selfishness is the philosophy of the thief, i.e. one who does not value the life or the property anyone else. Bernie Madoff comes to mind.

Now let’s take these two world views of selflessness and self-interest to their extreme.  What would become of a truly selfless person?  The only possible answer is a miserable life and an early death.  How could a truly selfless person sleep on a bed at night knowing others in the world are homeless?  She must surrender her bed.  How could a truly selfless person eat knowing some people somewhere are starving?  She must surrender all food and starve likewise.  How could a truly selfless person wear clothing, own or rent a house, own a car, hold a job, or do anything of kind knowing that others in the world are doing without?  She must surrender it all.  How could a truly selfless person live knowing that others will die unless she gives them her organs?  She must surrender her organs.  A truly selfless person must surrender her very life or else admit that she is not truly selfless.  Should this selfless person happen to live long enough to have children she would most likely pass along her world view of selflessness to her offspring thus contributing to a new generation of dependant, non-productive, selfless individuals.

Now consider what might become of a truly self-interested person?  She would likely study and work hard to build the best life possible for herself.  She might buy a house, start a family, buy a car, and earn a high income.  She might move to an even bigger house with a bigger yard for her children to play in. She might work hard to earn a raise so that she could provide a better living for her family.  She might start a business of her own seeking an even higher income and in the process end up employing several other self-interested and productive individuals.  She might make enough money to put her kids through college. Perhaps she will donate part of her earnings to her church and to the charities of her choosing because it makes her feel good to do so.  With increasing success she might generate enough wealth to give a family member or a friend a hand up.  After years of serving her own self interest she might retire comfortably at 65 and spend her remaining decades doing volunteer work helping others learn now to make better lives for themselves.  During her life this self-interested person would likely have passed on this world view to her children and grand children thus contributing to a new generation of responsible, productive, self-interested individuals.

Proponents of these opposite world views have been at war with one another for hundreds of years.  Which world view will you live by and fight for?  The one based on Selflessness or the one based on Self-Interest?  That is for you to decide but if you choose Selflessness as your operational ideology please turn off your computer right now and donate it along with the rest of your possessions and your very life to your new master, the collective.

By Mark Van Schuyver

It’s Not Fair!

News flash!  The countries that are most “fair” are the poorest countries in the world!  Why is this so?  Countries who have adopted a “fair” system of government seek to create a collectivist world where everyone has a right to all kinds of free stuff.  These countries promise free housing, free medical care, free food, free clothing, free education, i.e. they promise “social justice.”  Their goal is equality of outcome.  In these “fair” societies it is said that every person “deserves” a certain standard of living regardless of his or her productivity.  “Fair” governments do not hesitate to take money and property from the producers by force and give it to the non-producers (i.e. spread the wealth around, or wealth re-distribution).  Their philosophy is best summarized by the following catchy quote from a long dead philosopher named Karl Marx, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

Surprisingly the countries that are the least “fair” are the wealthiest, have the largest middle classes, and have the lowest rates of poverty! Why is this so?  Countries that have adopted an “un-fair” system of government seek to maintain an individualist world.  Realizing that stuff is not free and that there is always a limited supply of stuff the people and their leaders in these “unfair” countries seek to create a level playing field where every individual has a right to pursue stuff but no one has a right to free stuff taken by force from other people.  The goal of these individualist countries is equality of opportunity.  The “un-fair” individualist philosophy is best summarized by the following catchy quote from a former American President named Thomas Jefferson.  “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

For comparison let’s contrast one of the world’s most “fair” countries, North Korea with one of the world’s most un-fair countries The United States of America.  In collectivist/socialist North Korea everyone gets a fair share of the nation’s stuff.  No one, other than the leader and his cronies, is allowed to own property or keep more than he or she needs for subsistence (by the way millions have starved to death under this plan).  There is no middle class in collectivist and “fair” North Korea. Everyone except for the leader and his crew is dirt poor.  The Per Capita Income in collectivist North Korea is approximately $400 per person per year.

The United States, one of the world’s most “un-fair” countries, generally follows an individualist/capitalistic mode (with much room for improvement).  The United States has poor people to be sure but even the very poor in the USA are wildly rich by world standards.  The middle class is very large in the USA and staggeringly rich by world standards.  The US has a disproportionate number of millionaires and billionaires and yes they absolutely do create thousands of jobs.  Per Capita income in the United States is approximately $46,040 ($46k for every man, woman, and child per year).  Only Luxembourg has a higher per capita income.  In fact, The United States of America is so rich that it is home to half of the world’s richest 1% (about 29 million of the world’s richest 1% live in America).  In other words, the citizens of the USA include 50% of the world’s richest 1%.

Again and again we see that countries that embrace “fairness” as an operational principle (i.e. collectivism/socialism) experience only misery and poverty as a result.  Examples of the failure of "fairness" include North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, Iran, and of course the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Again and again we see that countries that embrace “un-fairness” as an operational principle (i.e. individualism/capitalism/liberty) enjoy prosperity and minimal real poverty as a result.  Examples include The USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland.

Surprisingly, “Fairness” (collectivism/socialism/social justice -equality of outcome) has proven itself to be the engine of poverty and “un-fairness” (individualism/capitalism/liberty-equality of opportunity) has proven itself to be the engine of prosperity.

By Mark Van Schuyver

Occupy Island A, B, C, or D?

You decide to occupy one of four beautiful Islands, Island A, B, C, or D. You are all packed but which one will you move to? Each of the four Islands has perfect weather. Each has a population of approximately 10,000 people.  They are alike in every way accept for their economic and political systems.  Before you make your decision on where to live let’s take a look at life on each of the four Islands.

Island A is governed by a “Ruling Family Council.” The Family Council cannot be removed from power.  The Council has determined that life shall be fair for everyone one on the Island.  From inside their opulent palace the Family Council enforces a strict system of “economic equality” and “social justice.”  All property on Island A is owned by all citizens equally, i.e. the Ruling Family Council owns all property on behalf of the citizens.  On Island A all citizens are guaranteed a job for life at a subsistence wage. Jobs are assigned by the ruling family council. Citizens who have the ability to earn more are required to give anything they earn above subsistence to other citizens who need it more, the rule being “from each according to her ability to each according to her need.” Communal housing is assigned by the government. On Island A, the church, the school system, the health care system, the banking system, the monetary system, the media, the transportation system, in fact every system, every organization, and every provider of every product or service is a monopoly that is strictly owned and operated by the government.  The Ruling Family Council owns the means of production therefore every job is a government job.  Competition is illegal on Island A. Black market trading is punishable by death or long unpleasant stay in the gulag. Trade with other Islands or other nations is prohibited.  Citizens are not allowed to leave the Island.  It is unlawful to criticize the government or to say anything that the Ruling Family Council does not like. For the good of the Island members of the Ruling Family Council are exempt from the laws and rules that apply to ordinary citizens. The Island is very poor. Poverty rate is estimated at 99%.

Island B has a democratic form of government and a Constitution that is not enforced. Laws that are enforced on citizens do not apply to politicians. The citizens own about half of the property on the Island and the government owns the rest. Everyone votes but about half of the population pays no taxes. The wealthiest one percent of the population earns about nineteen percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The government manages massive entitlement programs that operate at a staggering loss. Government-related entities back 96% of all home loans and 40 percent of mortgages are underwater.  Corporations and other organizations deemed “too big to fail” are routinely bailed out by the government using tax payer dollars.  Taxpayer dollars are routinely redistributed to money losing special interests corporations deemed to be “good investments” by the government.  Companies that support politicians with significant donations are given special tax breaks and protection from competition.  Excessive regulations cripple businesses and stifle innovation. Starting a new business requires paying off government agencies and buying your way through miles of red tape.  Businesses are taxed at the highest rate of any country in the world and many companies have already moved off Island.  Laws favor unions and other anti-business organizations making it more profitable for businesses owners to move off-Island. Entitlement programs, bureaucratic spending, government agencies, and wasteful government spending have resulted in massive unsustainable and exponentially rising debt. At this moment the Island is not poor by world standards but the poverty rate is hovering near 16% and the Island is technically bankrupt.

Island C is a Constitutional Republic. On Island C the Constitution is strictly enforced. The government is manned by elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution and legally bound to do so. The laws of the land are widely understood and widely accepted by all. Every law applies equally to the governed and the governing.  The Constitution restricts the government to the execution of a small but important number of duties including national defense, security, the court systems, and the protection of private property rights. A low flat tax is collected from all working citizens.  There are no other taxes and the tax rate cannot be increased except by Constitutional Amendment. The government cannot spend beyond its means because it is required by law to balance its budget in real terms each year. On Island C people are free to work where they want, say what the want, and keep almost all of what they earn.  Business owners are allowed to succeed or fail.  There are no bailouts for any company no matter how big or how small. There are no tax breaks for corporations. There are no subsides for businesses of any sort. There are no barriers to entry and no special favors for any business.  On Island C there are no restrictions on trade with other Islands and there are no tariffs on trade whether domestic or international. Anyone can start a business on Island C so long as she obeys the law.  Island C is fantastically wealthy.  At 6% the poverty rate on Island C is the lowest of any nation on the earth.

Island D has no government.  It exists in a state of anarchy.  There are no markets on Island D save cutthroat black markets and high seas piracy.  Ninety nine percent of the population lives in poverty.  A few warlords live in luxury.  100% of the population lives in fear. Life expectancy is very short.

There you have it. Islands A, B, C, and D. Now it is time to choose which Island you would like to occupy. . .

If you picked Island A you are a Marxist.  Pack light because whatever you take will be confiscated anyway.

If you picked Island B you favor a system economists describe as a mixed economy, part capitalist and part socialist.  Some economists call this type of system Corporatism or Crony Capitalism.  No need to pack because you are already on this Island.

If you picked Island C you are a classical liberal or what we now refer to as a libertarian. Pack anything you want and prepare to live long and prosper.

If you picked Island D you are an anarchist.  Remember to pack body armor.
By Mark Van Schuyver

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Seek “Equality of Outcome”

There is much in the news these days about how unfair life is.  The Wall Street Protesters call them selves the 99% to emphasize that some people have a lot more stuff than other people and “that’s just not fair.”  This sentiment is strongest on the left of the political spectrum. President Obama expressed it perfectly during the 08 campaign when he said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." At the heart of this philosophy is the belief that if one person has more stuff than another person then she must have stolen it and therefore she must give it back. Wealth beyond a subsistence amount cannot be justified regardless of whether it was earned on the farm or on Wall Street because it’s “just not fair.” Those who follow this belief system seek equality of outcome otherwise known as “social justice.”  Robin Hood might have said it this way, “Let’s steal from the rich and give what we steal to the poor and do it and do it until there ain’t no rich no more.”

This philosophy is not new. From time immemorial those who have had less have been jealous of those who had more. Politicians on the left and right have sought to remedy so called “income inequality” for decades with devices such as progressive taxation, i.e. the more you make the greater percentage the politicians take; subsidies, i.e. taking your tax money and giving it to special interests that appear beneficial like Solyndra to get more votes; tax breaks, i.e. lower taxes for those special interests that help politicians get reelected; trade barriers, i.e. protection for special interests at taxpayer expense; barrier to entry, i.e. you cannot start a business unless the politicians say so because your competitors have already paid the politicians off; legislation favoring unions that result in fewer jobs and higher costs for consumers, i.e. special laws for those who help politicians get reelected; bailouts for American Workers, i.e. your tax dollars redistributed to car companies and big banks; Social Security and Medicare, i.e. spending trillions of your tax dollars to buy billions of dollars worth of services; and stimulus spending, i.e. spending your tax money on boondoggles that look good on paper but actually toss your tax dollars down the drain.

For example, “According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were created or retained’ because of the $825 billion stimulus. If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job.” Long story short, government intervention into the market has only made the perceived income gap worse.

History has never created a society with equality of outcome. Several nations have tried this and all have failed miserably. The biggest and most dramatic failure of all was attempted by the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Those who would remake the world on the model of equality of outcome are up against an insurmountable economic reality that economist call scarcity, “the fundamental economic reality of having humans who have unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources.”  Welcome to the real world Neo.  Thus seeking equality of outcome is not and cannot be “fair.”

Sorry to break it to you Occupying Folks but life is not fair.  The Founders of our great Nation realized this fact.  They addressed it in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence when they wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . .” The Founders knew that life is not fair and that equality of outcome is not possible nor is it desirable. Their solution? Establish and ordain a Constitution that provides everyone with equality of opportunity to pursue happiness while never guaranteeing equality of outcome. 

Liberty and Justice for All does not mean “Let’s steal from the rich and redistribute what we steal to special interests and do it and do it until there ain’t no rich no more.”

By Mark Van Schuyver

Occupy Wall Street Jiu-Jitsu!

I’ve been watching the “occupy Wall Street" protests on TV. As near as I can tell the message of these protestors boils down to this: I was born. I do not want to take responsible for myself. Other people have been responsible for themselves and some of them have earned stuff. They have stuff that I want therefore they should give their stuff to me because I don’t want to take personal responsibility and earn stuff for myself. That just about sums it up. Therefore I suggest a new moniker for the “occupy Wall Street” protestors. I suggest the world owes me a living protest movement. Sorry, this is not very interesting I must admit.

What is interesting? The fact that the New York City Police have (as demonstrated in hundreds of hippie protestor arrests made so far) what looks like some pretty good Jiu-Jitsu moves! As a long time practitioner of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu I must say that to me this is the most interesting part of the world owes me a living protest movement phenomenon. Here are some examples. Go cops!

On the left see one cop taking the hippie's back.  On the right see two cops in a
scramble to get the hippie in  a shoulder lock. Keep fighting hippie protestor!

Here we see a knee on back stabilization and control the
wrists and shoulders move. Go cops!

Cop puts his knee ont the protestor's throat.  This is a great
hippie control move. Go cops!

Shoulder lock. Another great hippie control move.  Go cops!

Party over.  Come back for more Jiu-Jitsu lessons from NYPD
tomorrow world owes me a living protestors!

Hippie goes for a rear naked choke!  What a great training day!

Officer goes for a shoulder lock! Oops. Hippie going down!

Scramble and mayhem! This is what the octagon, I mean, the

"World Owes Me a Living" protest is all about! Woo hoo!!!

 

If nothing else this World Owes Me a Living protest is a great workout for everyone involved.
Keep scrambling hippie protestors and go cops!

Herman Cain Should Drop One Nine!

Herman Cain’s 999 plan has one two many nines. In other words his plan is two parts excellent and one part problematic. Mr. Cain’s plan is excellent because it eliminates the current tax code and that means an end to subsidies, tax breaks, and “corporate welfare.” It is excellent because it introduces an individual flat tax that gives everyone skin in the game. Right now almost fifty percent of the voters pay zero federal income tax. This means fifty percent of the population can vote to increase the taxes on the other fifty percent at no personal cost; a recipe for disaster!

Mr. Cain’s plan reduces the payroll tax. This is excellent because Social Security and Medicare are socialist budget-busting boondoggles that should be phased out and privatized as quickly as possible.

Mr. Cain’s plan is excellent because it gets rid of capital gains tax. Capital gains taxes are a form of double taxation that destroy investment incentives and stifle economic growth.

Mr. Cain’s plan is excellent because it lowers corporate income tax to a level that would be among the lowest on the planet. Right now the United States has the highest corporate income tax in the world. High corporate income taxes drive businesses and jobs overseas. High corporate income taxes destroy incentive. High corporate income taxes are a kind of stealth tax on consumers because corporations are forced to raise prices to recoup some of their loses.

Mr. Cain’s 999 plan is problematic because it introduces a national sales tax. While in the short term this nine percent “value added tax (VAT)” seems benign, it opens a Pandora’s Box of long term double-trouble. Future Presidents and future congresses will be free to add on to this national sales tax until it becomes an economy killer similar to that which exists in the UK and other European Socialist Democracies today. The VAT must not be allowed!

So I respectfully submit the following suggestion to presidential candidate Herman Cain. Drop one nine! How about a 99 plan! Nine percent personal flat tax. Nine percent corporate flat tax. Zero deductions and zero subsidies. The economic growth created by this new 99 tax code will more than make up for the problematic nine percent national sales tax.

By Mark Van Schuyver

Herman Cain?

Ron Paul won the "Values Voter poll," by a very wide margin and once again was ignored by the media. Gee I wonder why? Perhaps because Dr. Paul opposes military interventionism as well as economic interventionism. Darn that Constitution!

Ron Paul - 37%
Herman Cain - 23%
Rick Santorum - 16%
Rick Perrry - 8%
Michele Bachmann - 8%
Mitt Romney - 4%
Newt Gingrich - 3%
Jon Huntsman - 0% Undecided - 1%

By Mark Van Schuyver

Obama's New $450 Billion Stimulus #2 Plan!

President Obama’s socialistic “Stimulus” Package #1 cost American taxpayers $835 billion dollars and delivered massive unemployment, nearly three years of economic malaise, and added $835 billion plus interest to the national debt. Tonight Mr. Obama proposed a new $450 billion dollar “stimulus” spending plan euphemistically entitled “The American Jobs Act.” According to the president this new “stimulus” plan will restore the economy pronto and create lots of jobs.

This is cause for wonder given that many leading liberal politicians are on record saying that the reason that Obama’s first Keynesian stimulus package failed so miserably was because at $835 billion it was too small. If that is so then how will a new infusion of borrowed money totaling less than half of the original amount do the trick? If borrowing billions of dollars and spending it here and there on this and that special interest project or tax gimmick is the way to prosperity and the way out of debt then why didn’t Mr. Obama propose a Paul Krugman style supersized “stimulus” package of two trillion or more borrowed dollars?

Who can say why President Obama went for a pint size "stimulus" package this time around? As for me I have given up on the President. I think that the best thing he and his vice president could do for the economy and for the nation is to resign. How much malaise do we need to confirm that which we already know? Goverment intervention, wealth redistribution, and socialistic programs do not create prosperity.

By Mark Van Schuyver

Big Brother

Say no to Big Brother's "Smart Meters."  Video here.