It seems reasonable that anyone who has “skin in the game” should have a say in how the rules of that game are devised, as well as who would be making those rules. Today, as society “evolves”, the game is changing. Those who are relieved of any risk or have no financial interest other than “benefits received” are growing to a point where they will soon be in the majority, that is, if we’ve not already reached that point.

This growing segment of our population is comprised of those who are being relieved of their duty to pay a fair share of taxes. They have no “skin in the game”, so to speak.

In this country’s embryonic stage the rallying cry was “no taxation without representation.” What we’re seeing today is a growing portion of the populace having representation without the responsibility of taxation.

As the popular saying goes, “if you’re planning to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can pretty much count on Paul’s support.” When politicians seek out favor with the lower classes, they tend to offer “benefits” paid for by the upper classes, which in older times would have been considered bribes. Through the “dumbing down” of society via the continued lowering of standards in our educational system, the task of bribing by politicians is made easy. Oddly enough our educational standards are set by the politicians; are there dots here that need connecting?

Campaign finance regulations were implemented to limit corporate donations or corporate backing of preferred candidates for public office. From a certain perspective this makes sense. The “little man” is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the ability to finance the candidate of his or her choice, while corporations by comparison seem to have bottomless pockets filled with money.

It can also be argued that corporations are not people and with that being the case they should not have a say in the political process. But corporations do pay a lion’s share of the local, state, and federal tax bill. Their provisions of goods and services offer us better, more comfortable and convenient lives. Contributions to charitable concerns by corporations also serve as an example to all, their interest in the betterment of society.

The question then becomes one of justice. Is it just for the portion of society that pays the bills to be silenced, while those who contribute little or nothing have the greatest voice?

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to reinstate the political voice of corporations is correctly made. Those who pay their share should not have their voices silenced simply because of the depth of their pockets. Nor should those who contribute nothing be given power to control outcomes in elections.

In the Bible the apostle Paul instructs that if one does not work, then one does not eat. By that reasoning if one does not pay taxes, then one should be denied voting rights. Only those with “skin in the game” should have voting rights.

Let the rallying cry be: “No representation without taxation!”

  As I look at the state of the nation today I am reminded of a true story of a young girl who resisted her mother’s attempts at a proper upbringing. The young girl was rebellious to the extreme in all aspects of life. The mother advised “get an education”; the daughter dropped out of school. The mother advised “don’t get pregnant”; the daughter was soon with child. The mother advised “get a job”; the daughter refused to hold a job. The mother advised “save your money”; the daughter spent her money- all of it- as she went. The mother advised “marry a good man”; the daughter married a habitual drug user. And the cycle repeated in many other areas.

When time came for the new family (daughter, habitual drug using husband and child) to set up housekeeping, the daughter turned to her mother to finance the transition to an apartment. When bills came past due, the daughter turned to her mother to clean up the mess. When the daughter and her new husband came to their differences, the daughter wanted to move back home. The mother would faithfully go over and help the daughter gather her things and move them back home. By the time the move was complete the daughter had mended the difference with her new husband and wanted to move back. This became a weekly event.

The story continued in this pattern until one day a life changing event took place. When the daughter came to ask the mother for help in another crisis, the mother said “no” and a funny thing happened. The daughter found another way. At the next crisis, the daughter attempted to persuade her mother to come to her aid and again the mother said “no.” The daughter found another way. This cycle repeated a number of times and the result was that the daughter found that she could in fact manage her life without a continued dependency on her mother. The daughter soon found that the way in which her mother tried to raise her was in fact proper and right. The daughter soon adopted the mothers’ value system and they are now the best of friends.

This tale is now being played out today on a national scale. The mother is the government; the daughter is the vast and continuously increasing number of people with an entitlement mentality. The government once said “work, save, invest, and provide for your family’s future” (at the founding of this nation), but the entitlement minded said “no” and soon they became homeless. The government then set up a “temporary” welfare system to help the entitlement minded over their “rough patch” and the entitlement minded recognized a new way of life sans the necessity of laboring for their reward. The ranks of the entitlement minded grew until they became the majority of citizens, thus voting themselves multiple increases in benefits at the expense of the government (read producing citizens since the government can provide nothing that it hasn’t taken from the producers).

The entitlement minded people are now demanding a health care benefit to help perpetuate their self destructive lifestyle at the expense of the young, the productive, and the elderly. The time is now long past due for the government to tell the entitlement minded “NO” so that they, like the daughter in the story, can find another way. Perhaps they’ll find that by working, saving, investing, and providing for their family’s future is indeed a better way in terms of financial stability, societal respect, and self esteem. Does the government have the “sand” to tell the entitlement minded “NO”; not in the progressive culture in which we now live. The government desires to perpetuate the dependency lifestyle of the entitlement minded; they feel it gives them great power to control the lives of a weak willed people.

We have gone to great lengths to reverse travel on the path our Founding Fathers have laid before us. They came from a domineering, powerful central government and gave to us a system of government rooted in liberty and opportunity for all. We are now destroying that freedom by placing our lives in the hands of an incompetent but powerful central government. We are now wasting all the shed blood of those who’ve fought for our freedom since our founding as a nation. We should all be ashamed.

By the way, the daughter has removed the habitual drug user from the role of husband. She is now working at a steady job and planning to continue her education. She is also now married to a military man who is voluntarily defending the liberty of the entitlement minded; will the entitlement minded make the most of that liberty or will they choose a slave-like dependency on the mother government?

The daughter and her family are now looking forward to the purchase of their first home.

 

Why does it always cost so much money for Congress to pass legislation? If they’re doing their job, they’re only passing laws that, “regulate commerce… between the several states”, why does it always cost astronomical sums of money that inevitably result in higher taxes? When they finally achieve their goal of robbing us of one hundred percent of our incomes and that still isn’t enough to support all their social programs, what will they do? Just exactly how much money is enough?

And why are they allowed to vote themselves raises? Shouldn’t “We the People” be the ones who determine their worth and how much they’re paid? There must be something in the Constitution; I’ll have to look it up. Not that any of our elected officials would trouble themselves with adherence to a document deemed by them as antiquated and meaningless as the Constitution. But then, what of their oath of office? Seems they are, to the last, liars.

If our elected representatives in Government want to insist that we “sacrifice” during these “difficult times” shouldn’t they lead by example? If they were forced to lay off their ponderous teams of aids and interns, they would then be required to actually write the legislation they vote on. This is one way to get them to “read the bill.” The words of John Conyers, representative from my own district, come to mind as I write. The time has indeed come for “change.”

*****************************************

There are a good many people out there who are adamant about not buying American made automobiles. Many of a conservative bent are against the help offered to and taken by the auto companies and their argument contains some degree of merit. I think the means by which the government stepped in and dictated the course of events was wrong; it could have been done many other ways and more economically for taxpayers. It would have been better, I think, to let the bankruptcy process run its course without the prior injection of taxpayer money. The results of such a measure would have proven more just for all concerned. The investors would have been better protected and the union would have taken a much deserved beating, since they are in no small way responsible for the state of the industry. In addition, a reduction in corporate tax rates to help ease the financial burdens on these manufacturers would have proved beneficial in the long term.

I think its fine for people to stand on principal, but there is a practical side to the matter as well. If we all jump on the band wagon and buy foreign cars thereby letting our manufacturing base fall to ruin, who then will build the military machine when the time comes to go to war? What would happen should the Chinese decide they’re ready to release their pent up aggression against us? I think its common knowledge that they’re building their military and they’re not doing it “just for fun.” Will they provide the equipment we would need to defend ourselves? Will the Russians? Perhaps we could turn to our Muslim friends in the Middle East.

During the events that lead to the founding of this country, I’m sure there were many who were, by principal, against the idea of violent revolution. But in the process of thinking things through, they decided that their love of liberty took precedence over their principal of peace. What good are principals when we’re locked in a gulag somewhere, without reason, and for an undetermined length of time? Should we stand on principal and let the manufacturing base disintegrate thus losing our means of providing for a national defense and subsequently our freedom to debate these issues? Where is the wisdom in this type of thought?

What good does it do for me to stand on my conservative principals and let my next door neighbor fall to poverty by supporting his foreign competitor? He will then join the ranks of the unemployed, and from there transition to the welfare rolls and I would then be paying his way. Can I realistically expect him to then support my industry; would he? When he is no longer able or willing to support my industry, what will come of me and my prosperity? There are things we can do to help in reducing the welfare state in this country and buying American is one of them. Remember the “Golden Rule!”

We desperately need to support our manufacturing base in this country if only to maintain a means for defending ourselves as a nation. In doing so we also help our neighbors in their quest for the prosperity we all desire. The frequently seen term “Buy American” has incredible meaning these days; in more ways than we are sometimes aware. There are times when we must cast aside our petty differences and stand united as a sovereign nation. Let us not succumb to the unintended consequences of our principals; we must think these things all the way through. Our survival as a nation hangs in the balance!