Where do your federal tax dollars go?

April 15.

Tax Day, and my in-laws wedding anniversary. (This year it's their 60th!!)

Today I received an email from David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to the President. (Bet you didn't know I had such powerful friends.)

Here it is:

Good afternoon,

Have you ever wondered how much of your own tax dollars actually go to support foreign aid? To support education? Well, now you can find out – and you might be surprised.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama promised that this year, for the first time, American taxpayers would be able to go online and see exactly how their federal tax dollars are spent.

So today, we’re announcing the first-ever federal taxpayer receipt. Check it out:


Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and the taxpayer receipt will give you a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veteran’s benefits, or health care.

Sincerely,

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President

I decided to give it a try. Plugged in my Social Security tax, Medicare tax and Federal Income tax. Then I calculated how much of my tax is spent on the military, the courts and the police---the only three legitimate areas of government action.

31%

If government was reduced to its proper function of protecting our inalienable individual rights to life, liberty and property, I could pay 60% less tax. More importantly, I would have 60% less my property expropriated by the very institution designed to protect my property.

Something to think about.

Government needn't be so large and our liberty so diminished.

.

FTC blog rules attack free speech

Abolish the FTC: New Blogging Rules

by Ari Armstrong (HT Rational Capitalist)

1. The FTC's rules constitute censorship and onerous controls.
2. The FTC's rules are capricious and nonobjective.
3. The FTC's rules open the door to further political abuses.
4. The FTC's rules undermine the equal protection of the laws.
5. The FTC's rules violate privacy.
6. The FTC's rules are unnecessary.

Read the post for a more detailed analysis.

And it's not just blogging...watch what you twitter or put in your Facebook status reports! As Diana Hsiesh puts it, they are Regulating Speech to Death.


Any one feeling warm yet?




And from the site where I stumbled on the above image:

"The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation, and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation." - United States Supreme Court, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)


Serendipitous?

Honduras: Lessons in Constutionality

Thanks to Gus Van Horn for linking to an excellent article on the latest developments in Honduras. The appropriateness of ousting former Honduran President Zelaya for his unconstitutional activities has been reinforced by further details and this week-end's election.

America, North, South and Central, still struggles to understand the prerequisites for freedom, but recent events in Honduras provide an example worthy of emulation.

WSJ In Elections, Honduras Defeats Chavez, by Mary Anastasia O'Grady

And from Honduran, Rodrigo Cantero:

Time and time again we have seen "democrats" like Hugo Chavez, like Evo Morales, like Rafael Correa and now Daniel Ortega trying to turn their countries into their own private ranches, and we have seen the International Community stand by and just applaud rigged election after rigged election.

Cantero's scare quotes are unnecessary though. Chavez, Morales, Ortega, Correa...and Hamas, and Ahmadinejad, and unfortunately Obama and the U.S. Congress, are democrats. Democracy is not commensurate with liberty--but with unfettered majority rule: mobocracy. The presence of elections, in-and-of themselves, do not preserve liberty. What preserves freedom, in Honduras, in the United Sates, and anywhere, is a constitution which places the protection of individual rights above the will of the majority as well as beyond the control of a would-be-dictator.

This is a lesson the United States will have to relearn if we wish to continue to live in liberty.



.

When Misinformation becomes Deception

An excellent IBD editorial, "Speaking of Misinformation," takes a point-by-point look at President Obama's health care speech. When the President's statements are so easily shown to be misleading, it no longer a matter of simple misrepresentation, but one of outright deception.

The Cato Institute provides a 5 minute video with another set of counterpoints.



Facts are important, but more important is the context within which the facts exist. It is this context that President Obama ignores: that this is a country of liberty based on individual rights and the very idea of government-controlled health care is in direct violation of all three of those rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- a pursuit which occurs through the use of one's own honestly earned private property.


.

Socialism is Democracy

In reading the AAPS News, I came across these quotes:

"Socialism is democracy." ---Hugo Chavez

"Democracy is like the grave it perpetually cries `give, give,' and, like the grave, it never returns what it has once taken. Do not surrender to democracy that which is not yet ripe for the grave."
Bulwer Lytton, quoted in TCSDaily 10/3/07

In trying to verify the quote attributed to Chavez, I found this article:

Chavez: Venezuela Backs Socialism Shift

Chavez spoke after the elections council formally declared him the winner, defeating Manuel Rosales with nearly 63 percent of the vote. Electoral officials said turnout was about 75 percent. "Those who voted for me didn't vote for me. They voted for the socialist plan, to build a profoundly different Venezuela," Chavez said, praising the Rosales camp for accepting his victory. "I want to salute the responsible opposition ... It was time they assumed the attitude of true democrats." Chavez won some 7.2 million votes out of more than 11 million cast, the results showed. "These more than 7 million votes are votes for socialism," Chavez told reporters. "Socialism is democracy. ... With capitalism, a true democracy is impossible." --SolidarityEconomy.net 12/7/06

"With capitalism, true democracy is impossible." This is true. I would also say that with a true democracy, capitalism is impossible. Protection of individual rights is impossible. Freedom is impossible. Wealth and prosperity will be severely diminished and available only to the politically connected.

Democracy, or rule by the people, or unlimited majority rule, is the same as mob rule. What sets the stage for peace and prosperity is the rule of law built upon the restraints of the individual rights to life, liberty and property. Capitalism, properly understood, is the economic system constructed upon those principles. Capitalism consists of the voluntary exchange of privately owned property. Social interactions are limited by mutual respect for the rights of others and the absence of the initiation of force. Private coercion is outlawed. Coercion by the government is limited to the protection of individual rights and constrained by equality before the law.

Recently, I wanted to provide a brief but essentially complete explanation of my reasons for believing the above. This prompted me to look up a "slide show" I had found on the net several years ago. Short. Sweet. To the point. If you haven't seen it before, check out the Capitalism.org Tour.

Hmmmm. Interesting. Chavez was right.


.

California finds a backdoor to the Fed's magic printing press. Will it be unlocked?

Doug Reich, The Rational Capitalist, has made a crucial observation that needs to be understood far and wide. Be sure to read his entire post, also up at simply Capitalism.

Now Your State Can Print Money Too!

One reason why spending at the state level can rarely get out of control is because states lack the power to print money. In other words, they must rely on taxation or municipal bond offerings to raise money to fund their budgets. Since taxation is unpopular, there is an obvious political limit to increased tax rates. Since private municipal bond investors can only buy so much debt before asking for higher interest rates, there is also a limit to the amount states can raise through borrowing. The federal government figured out how to get around this limit by creating the Federal Reserve System which is a pseudo private bank with the power to create money. The Fed can buy federal government debt from the public with fake money. Therefore, the federal government always has a buyer for its paper.

Now, the states want to get in on the action.

Of course, the states will not ask for the direct power to print money. They have a more clever way...


.

Today's Liberty Quotes are helpful in my efforts to recharge, so I am breaking my break briefly to share them with you. If these ideas were understood before, they can be understood again.

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it."

-- Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th US President Speech, 1912

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

-- Alabama, Declaration of Rights Article I Section 35

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

-- Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona)

Rule of Law takes another hit

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. As constitutionally mandated, President Obama will name Souter's successor. This is appropriate and presents no problem. The problem arises in the selection criteria that the President has announced he will use in chosing the next judge to serve on our country's highest court. The Washington Times reports, "empathy" will trump knowledge of the law.

President Obama said Friday he will look beyond traditional legal experience to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter -- to someone who can relate to average Americans...

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation," Mr. Obama said.

He is being encouraged in this by political supporters:

Liberal interest groups said in replacing him, Mr. Obama must push for a judge who will look beyond the letter of the law to consider race, and vulnerability.

What is "the rule of law"? Wikipedia provides a decent introduction to this essential ingredient of a liberal (liberty and rights-based) political system.

The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application.^[1] This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law...^[2][3]

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.^[10]

Rule of Law is a legal-political concept identifying the supremacy of law over the arbitrary judgment of men. It's ultimate purpose is the protection of individual rights from the government's abuse of power. The Rule of Law acts as a restraint on government, requiring it to abide by objective, predictable rules. Lady Justice is blindfolded--not to obscure her review the facts or the law, but to prevent knowledge of specific individuals from influencing her judgment. Fear, empathy, favoritism, all must be excluded from a judge's decision in order to achieve equal treatment before the law.

The essence of tyranny is arbitrary power. The progress of civilization has a been a battle against the arbitrary and tyrannical use of force by thugs and by governments. It is a battle fought not just with swords (although Justice requires a sword as well) but with ideas. The principles of "The Rule of Law" and its corollary "Equality Before the Law" are not just "some abstract legal theory" to be subordinated to "the daily realities of people's lives" but are instead the essential principles which differentiate a liberal republic from tyranny. Our President's ignorance of this is inexcusable, and cause for great concern.



Note: The bronze statue of Lady Justice is displayed at the Saint Louis University School of Law. I tried to find the name of the sculptor and the photographer but so far have been unable to locate them. For more of my thoughts on this wonderful sculpture, click here.

.

Mr. Madison speaks

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: 1792, in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist some French refugees

(HT Liberty Quotes)

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money and promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

(HT Walter Williams homepage)



(P.S. Still regrouping.)
.