Letter to my Daughter

10-18-08 | p. henry

[p. henry]

My Dear Fellow Freepers:

My daughter is in the middle of her college semester abroad. I sent her a letter about the election and now share it with you.

Dear Courtney:

It occurs to me that your host family or others you meet during your semester abroad may be interested in our Presidential election and that much of what they read and hear about it is produced by a media that is to say the least heavily biased in favor of one of the candidates. So, to help you help them see things from a perspective not shared by the great majority of those who produce our news, I am writing this letter in which I explain why I will vote for John McCain.

In at least one sense, this election is about who we are as individuals and as a country. During my lifetime, the United States, when compared to the rest of the world, has been a land of opportunity, in which free men making, and taking responsibilty for, the decisions that shape their lives have either prospered or failed as a consequence of those decisions. That liberty created the strongest, most prosperous, most intellectually diverse culture the world has ever known. However, for some years now those who deny the salutary effects of individual choice in all but a few matters have laid seige to our culture in favor of one in which those who prosper are reduced and those who fail are uplifted. The election of Obama with a Congress controlled by Democrats would ensure the final victory of this collectivist philosophy. It would certainly be "change" but not change anyone should believe in.

If enacted, Obama's proposed changes to the tax laws would over time destroy capitalism in the United States. Capitalism requires, and is defined by, the aggregation and application of capital. Obama would raise the top two marginal rates and phase out itemized deductions. He would also uncap Social Security taxes, which are currently applicable to the first $102,000 of earnings. When added to the Medicare tax, Obama's proposed changes would result in a top marginal tax rate of more than 60%. Quite apart from the moral implications of taxing anybody at that level, you could not reasonably expect people to save enough to invest in new businesses when, the moment they earn enough to save a dollar or two, government would take six out of every ten dollars they earn. For much of my career, I have worked with start-up and development stage companies. Some of them failed; some remained small; some became quite large indeed. Altogether they created thousands, if not tens of thousands, of new jobs. All of those companies were started with initial equity fundings from friends and family. Under Obama, those equity funds would be greatly diminished, and without them significantly fewer new companies and jobs would be created. One of the great ironies of this campaign (or perhaps it's a tragedy) is that Obama is drawing much of his support from young people, and they are the ones would suffer the most and longest in the depressed economy that would be the legacy of Obama's tax and other economic policies.

And to what end would Obama do such damage to our economy? In his words, his changes would "spread the wealth around." Assuming for a moment that "spreadng the wealth around" is a good thing either morally or practically, is it a proper function of government? Should government use its police powers to accomplish that goal? Is it a just government that buys one man's vote by promising to give him a dollar he has not earned by first taking it from someone who has earned it? How is that system different from the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" that is a central tenet of a creed we spent fifty years, trillions of dollars, and more than one hundred thousand lives consigning to the dustbin of history? And finally, how is Obama's philosophy consistent with our American belief that each man is responsible for his own success or failure?

As you can tell from the nature of these questions, I do not believe government should "spread the wealth around." While fortune, good or ill, undoubtedly plays a part in whether any one man propers, over all of American society success or failure is mostly determined by the choices we make. And, because people will usually do what they perceive to be in their own self interest, the more government mitigates the consequences of the choices we make, the less prosperous society will become over the long run. What began 44 years ago as Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty has evolved into Barak Obama's War on Prosperity.

In stark contrast to Obama's platform, John McCain's proposed tax changes would incentivize work and the creation of new jobs. He would extend the tax cuts of 2001 for all taxpayers, not just those in the lower brackets; he would reduce our corporate tax rate, which is among the highest in the world; and he would allow the immediate expensing of new equipment and technology.

Of the two candidates, John McCain has also demonstrated a better understanding of the threat the non-Islamic world faces from jihadist Islam. Our response to this threat has been mischaracterized as a War on Terror. How can we be at war with a tactic? We are at war with those who practise militant, expansionist Islam, represented by messianic Shiite mullahs in Teheran and Wahhabist sheiks in the Hindu Kush; and by "we" I do not mean the United States. I mean most of the non-Islamic world.

This is a very old and long conflict, having continued in fits and starts since the middle of the 7th Century. In 732 its principal front was at Tours; in 1453 it was at Constantinople; in 1529 and again in 1683 it was at Vienna. Today it can be found in Darfur, Somalia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Thailand and the Philippines, as well as in a number of European Countries in which the demographic trends do not auger well for the future of a Christian culture. Its more recent vitims include commuters in Madrid and London and bond traders in New York. Many Europeans do not acknowlege the gravity of the threat. The French tolerate no-go zones in some of their cities. The British, authors of the Magna Carta and the founders of one thousand years of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence, are beginning to recognize Sharia courts in England. Film directors and authors who offend jihadist sensibilities are not safe in the Netherlands. Among Western Europeans, it seems that only the Danes truly understand the nature of the beast and are willing to stand up to it.

Reasonable people can differ as to whether our invasion of Iraq was justified or advisable. Certainly, most Americans today would judge it harshly. Fifty years hence, historians may reach a different conclusion. What is not honestly disputable is that a defeat or perceived defeat of our forces in Iraq would have had disastrous consequences for us in our battle with jihadist Islam. John McCain was one of the earliest and most prominent supporters of the Petraeus Surge that secured our victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Senator Obama opposed the Surge and advocated the moral equivalent of surrender. A good argument can be made that he did so in part to secure the support of the left wing of his party in his contest with Hillary Clinton. If his position was the result of poor judgment, it should call into question his fitness to serve as our President. If it was in fact a calculated political ploy designed to gain advantage over Mrs. Clinton, such a cynical and self-serving act involving our national security and the armed forces of our country should disqualify him from becoming Commander in Chief.

Senator Obama advocates a number of other policies which, if adopted, would reduce our prosperity and slow the creation of jobs. He would sign a bill enacting into law the doctrine of compararble worth, which would vest in federal bureaucrats or the courts the authority to determine the wages a private company could pay for different jobs to avoid alleged gender discrimination arising from the fact that some jobs are primarily performed by men and other are usually performed by women. His national health insurance plan calls for fining employers who do not provide health insurance for their employees. Lifting the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes would immediatley increase the cost of employing people who earn more than the cap. He favors eliminating the need for a secret ballot when employees are trying to decide whether they should join a union. All these positions are job killers. Whenever you increase the cost or risk inherent in hiring someone, you decrease the liklihood he will be hired. Consequently, the recession we are now entering will be significantly longer and deeper if Senator Obama becomes our President.

There are many reasons I have decided to vote for John McCain, including his demonstrated strength of character and his long record of service to our country. This letter summarizes only a few of them. However, I hope that it will help you explain to your host family and to your friends and our family why many Americans will vote for him and that it will dilute to some extent the biased bilgewater that is masquerading as American journalism during this election.

Much love,

Your Dad

[nmh]

“Who are you to ascertain the necessity of the written word versus the spoken word? Shouldn't that be up to dad? Writing is a form of communication. Should parents not communicate in every way possible with their children? “

Most responsible parents don't need a “moment” like this. The KIDS ALREADY KNOW. It's been taught to them by the PARENTS.

“Your objections are baffling. What point are you trying to make? I still have letters from my mom and dad from my college days. They are wonderful keepsakes, as I'm sure this father's letter will be to his daughter. “

You lack of sense is “baffling” to me. Were they still teaching you the basics or just hi, how are you and what's going on? Never mind. You wouldn't know the difference.

“Why did you put the word “letter” in quotation marks? Are you insinuating that it's not an actual letter? Why are UPPERCASE words SCATTERED throughout your posts? Why do you end every sentence in an exclamation point!? “

I'm just quoting the word in the title:

“Letter to my Daughter” It is proper grammar to quote this. Perhaps you didn't know that either. There is nothing wrong with uppercase. It highlights my frustration with ignoramuses like you. Not every sentence ends in an exclamation mark. Get glasses!

“Maybe if you were a better writer yourself, you wouldn't take such incredible offense to people who write well.”

No, it's not my “writing”. It's your lack of comprehending the obvious even when it is repeatedly spelled out to you. I take offense to people like you that nit pick over nothing. DU might suit you better. Did you also check to see if I spelled the words correctly or placed my commas to your satisfaction?

Don't bother to reply!

I won't be wasting my time reading it!