Posted on 07/02/2002 9:03:18 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
The political pundits have treated us, recently, to a debate over whether Richard Nixon was sleazier than Bill Clinton. Certainly, it is a competitive contest and it is understandable on the 30th anniversary of the Watergate break in. I believe strongly that personal integrity cannot be separated from private integrity and I would not minimize the appalling actions of these two Presidents. However, we have an even more serious problem with government.
George Bush is, by all observable standards, an honest man. He would not be expected to discuss hush money payments to criminals, to take money from the Chinese military, or to conduct sexual activity, that most men over fraternity age long ago gave up, in the White House and then lie about it in court under oath. As far as we know he is living up to those expectations. As a Conservative Republican, he would not be expected to expand the role of government in our lives. There he is proving to be a major disappointment.
I don´t want to give George Bush a hard time. I voted for him and do not see any better alternatives on the horizon. The problem is not Bush. It is the fact that the intrusive and too powerful government has so permeated our society and culture that even honest Conservative Republicans have embraced it rather than fight a losing battle against it.
What is particularly disturbing about the intrusive government is that acceptance of its power to punish gives it enormous power when it offers to withhold punishment. This exists in all aspects of government. Most of us don´t mind when it exists in the criminal justice arena. By promising a Sammy (the Bull) Gravano not to prosecute him for multiple homicides, the Federal Prosecutors were able to get him to provide testimony that put John Gotti in prison. Now Gotti and Gravano are repulsive to most of us, so that seems fine.
Unfortunately, when power is given to anyone, it becomes theirs to use as they see fit. When we give coercive power to government we assume it will be used for good purposes and against bad elements. However, this is not always the case. Let´s look at another example.
A married couple with two children earning $100,000 during 2001 paid approximately $20,000 in federal income taxes. This does not include social security taxes, Medicare taxes, state income taxes, or sales taxes. Why should we care about a wealthy couple you might ask? Anybody living in high cost areas such as much of California, New York City, or any other such area knows that $100,000 in earnings hardly makes you wealthy. Even if it did, is it the role of government to punish people for succeeding?
But the government is not really that mean. If you do things that the government wants you to do, they will give you a break. If you pay interest on a mortgage you get a break. If you live in a home for two years before selling it you get a break. If you buy a hybrid electric car (a whole column could be devoted to the absurdity of this) you get a break. You see, the government is really pretty nice to you, it gives you these breaks.
If you want to spend money on educating your children before college there is no break. If you are considering moving and therefore find renting your home more sensible there is no break. If a mother chooses not to work in order to raise her children there is no break. The government through the political process decides who to give a break to and who not to give a break to. Of course those who contribute to political parties and have effective lobbyists are more likely to get such breaks.
However, the bigger question is why do we need a break. If the government were not taxing us so heavily, we would not be looking for these breaks. In some ways the government resembles a protection racket. The street gang or organized crime collects money from shopkeepers in order to make sure that their property is not vandalized. Of course it is the providers of protection whom the shopkeeper needs protection from.
When Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax the pro government demagogues blasted the idea. One of their favorite arguments was that if adopted the flat tax would lead to the repeal of the home mortgage interest deduction. People are so used to paying high tax rates and hoping for relief from the providers of the pain that they did not realize that if tax rates were much lower, they would not need a break for mortgage interest. Of course the government officials would lose enormous amounts of power if they did not have onerous tax burdens for which they could offer exemptions from for their favorite constituents.
Lobbyists besiege the Congress looking for special breaks for their clients. Often this means that they are looking to not be punished by the government. According to many, Microsoft was a victim of the failure to understand this concept and to act accordingly. Under this theory, if Microsoft was contributing to political parties (most companies contribute to both parties since they never know which one they will want a favor from) it would not have been hit with the major anti trust action by the Federal Government. Microsoft did not need anything from government but it needed to have the punishing power of government not unleashed upon it.
Our nation is based on the principle of limited government. All governmental power is to be derived from the people, not the other way around. The writers of the Declaration of Independence stated that all men are endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable rights. This means that the source of our rights is our creator, G-d or whatever one believes is behind our existence. It specifically means that government is not the source of our rights.
Government has a purpose. Its purpose is to make sure that the rights enumerated, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are defended. The founders put severe limits on government. They knew that a large, and powerful, government was the most likely path back to the tyranny they had recently escaped.
Government should be merely an expression of the people´s will. It should be like a robot that operates under command. Today, government has taken on a life of its own. There is a permanent government class made up of politicians, lobbyists, beneficiaries of government spending, government employees, political operatives, and businesses that derive much of their revenue from government activity.
The ability to punish people who fail to please government officials is not obvious. Unlike a classic dictator our government does not jail political opponents. It does not necessarily look to punish people. It does, however, require a price from citizens to avoid economic punishment. The concept is being further applied in the form of political correctness.
During the Clinton Administration, Roberta Achtenberg was an official of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Prior to obtaining that position, she was an elected official in San Francisco. Like many openly gay politicians she was opposed to the Boy Scouts´ policy of not allowing openly gay parents to be in positions of leadership in the Boy Scouts. She was instrumental in having the City Government institute a boycott against the Boy Scouts and against any businesses that supported the Boy Scouts.
She carried this coercive attitude with her to Washington DC. In Berkeley, California some homeowners were upset to find out that a plan was being made to place a drug recovery half way house on their street. They used their Constitutional right to petition against this plan. They received a letter from HUD warning them that they might face a Federal lawsuit for discriminating against the residents of this half way house if they continued their petition.
After enough episodes like this citizens get the message that they face trouble if they oppose the politically correct attitude. They can easily avoid such punishment. They only need to keep their politically incorrect mouths shut. Then they have nothing to worry about.
The only way to avoid these situations is to sharply curtail the power and scope of government. A great President, Ronald Reagan, came to power promising to cut two cabinet departments out of the Federal Government. While the Gipper was successful in standing up to the Soviet Union he never came close to eliminating cabinet departments. I suspect we are going to live with an increasingly large and coercive government for the foreseeable future. Citizens largely understand this and act accordingly. This does not augur well for our future as citizens of a republic where government derives all power from its constituents.
This is Official Document from the World Bank
The World Bank ISIBH street N.W. (202)477-1234
INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT Washington, D.C. 20433 Cable Address: INTBAFRAD
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION U.S.A. Cable Address: INDEVAS
Verification of Employment
August 16, 1999
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The information listed below certifies the employment status of the indicated World Bank Group staff member as recorded in official records. The staff member is exempt from U.S. Federal and State taxes as provided in the By-Laws and Regulations of the World Bank Group inasmuch as World Bank Group income is concerned.
Name:
Title: Operations Officer Organization: IBRD
Department: Africa Region Resident Missions Duty Station: ACCRA, Ghana Appointment Type: Local Fixed Term Date of Appointment: 3/2/95
Gerard Byam Sector Manager, Finance Africa Region
RCA 248423. Ifl WUI 64145 tfl FAX (202) 477-6391
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.