US Tax System Needs Overhaul

I am not sure who gets the credit as the candidate for tax reform, perhaps it goes back to the institution of the Internal Revenue Service itself and the first person to complain... Did you know that the Income Tax was not included in the original Constitution but added through Amendment in 1913? There was a short flirtation with an income tax during the Civil War (appropriate, don't you think, as the Federal government started replacing the State and local governance), the office of the Commissioner of the Revenue was created in 1862 as a means of paying for the costs of the war. This office lasted about 10 years, I assume until the financial and social crisis was seen to have passed. It was resurrected in the 1890's but deemed unconstitutional within a year by the Supreme Court.

Only in 1913 did the Income Tax "stick," creating the Bureau of Internal Revenue through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. One assumes that this was another tool of the Federal government to use against those involved in unlawful enterprises as many of the "gangsters" of the day were jailed not due to their activities, but due to their failure to pay appropriate income taxes, as well as providing general income funds. The rates were generally low other than in years of wartime or distress, and the Bureau gradually evolved into the IRS that we know today that is tasked with providing the funds necessary to run our burgeoning bureaucracy. 

We have managed to allow the IRS to become the most feared government agency in existence, I think we would all rather the FBI was chasing us around than the IRS. We allowed government spending to increase to such a level that taxes are necessary to keep it afloat, but this agency was never a part of the plan of the Founders plan, it is a relatively modern invention, an agency tasked to do whatever it takes to raise funds and with the "teeth" to back it up.

I support those who want to do away with the IRS and the confusing tax codes, so confusing in fact that the CPA's and general accountants and clerks across America don't know much more than we do when it comes down to it, they rely on complex software packages to keep up with the rules. I personally prefer no tax at all other than to provide for the common defense and essential services that no one area can provide for itself, but even then the source of that revenue should be changed to something that makes more sense. 

The buzzword today is the "Fair Tax" or the "Consumption Tax," which has been passed around in elite circles for quite some time. Basically, if you buy a good or service, you would add a percentage to that purchase which would go to the Federal government, much like the Sales Tax that most States use. No muss, no fuss, simple and to the point, you keep all the money you earn to spend as you like with no one checking up on you once a year. I believe this is a much more favorable means of appropriately and fairly raising the funds needed to run the necessary programs, although the actual amount and the programs that would be funded is another subject entirely.

Think of our tax system in this very simplified analogy:

10 friends enjoy each other's company and like going to the movies together on Friday nights (had to pick a reasonable place and use nice, round numbers to simplify this for myself...). Their total cost for the night at the movies is $100. Using recent IRS rates to illustrate:

The first 4 (the poorest of the group) would pay nothing, the fifth pays $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eight $12, the ninth $18 and the tenth (the richest of the group) $59.

And they were OK with this arrangement, enjoyed their movie and just assumed the disparity in cost was fair. Now let's assume for a moment that the movie theater needed to create income for the snack bar, so they offered a 20% rebate on the cost of movie tickets. The total cost for the Friday night out would now be $80. They all still expected the first 4 to get their tickets for free, but had to decide how the $20 in savings would be distributed among the rest. $20 divided by the remaining 6 people would be $3.33 in savings each, but they quickly realized that they would end up paying the 5th and 6th moviegoer to see the movie which did not seem fair, so they decided to reduce each person's ticket by an amount relative to their current price, so:

The fifth now paid nothing like the first four, the sixth paid $2, the seventh $5, the eighth $9, the ninth $14 and the tenth $49. Pretty obvious that they were all better off than before, but pretty soon someone got out a calculator and figured out that although the sixth person saved 33%, that amount was only a dollar, and although the tenth person only saved 16% that amounted to a whopping $10 in savings.

This situation started a firestorm.

The fifth person was also upset that they only saved a dollar and the tenth person saved $10, the seventh joined in to exclaim how the wealthy get all the breaks! The first four people were up in arms at how this system did not give them anything back and was used to exploit the poor! Pretty soon the whole group was bickering over their own situation, which eventually turned into railing on the tenth person until that person quietly decided to move (the Cayman Islands I guess...) to avoid the whole mess.

The next Friday night at the movies the tenth person did not show up, and the other nine were shocked to find that even with the cost reduction, they did not have enough money between them to cover even half the tickets. Now what to do? 

We are presently right at the point of deciding what to do, how to get the same services (movie tickets) tomorrow that we are enjoying today, before the whole system blows up and we can't even afford half of what we have. Please consider the Fair Tax and its cousins as a viable alternative that is fair for everyone, simple to understand and necessary for the future growth of our nation. Compliments to David Kamerschen, Professor of Economics at UGA for the original premise of the tax illustration.

Student's Pledge of Allegiance

I found something that I thought I should share, I wish I could claim it for my own, but it was written by someone smarter than I, a 15 year old student from Arizona...I don't think I need to add a thing.

Now I sit me down in school,

where praying is against the rule.

For this great nation under God,

Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,

it violates the Bill of Rights,

and any time my head I bow,

becomes a federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

that's no offense, its a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law precise,

prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall,

might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we meditate,

God's name prohibited by the State.

We're allowed to dress and cuss like freaks,

and pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but first the Bible,

To quote the good book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant senior Queen,

and the unwed "Daddy" our senior King.

Its inappropriate to teach right from wrong,

we're taught such judgments do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth control,

study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

no word of God must reach this crowd.

Its scary here I must confess,

when chaos reigns, the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make

should I be shot, my soul please take.

The Divided States of America

Never since the Civil War (or the War Between the States if you prefer) has America been divided into such a clean division of social and political ideals. That is a bold statement, but if you really stop and think about it you will find it appropriate. We are 2 nations within common borders, without geographical identity so each side is hard to pinpoint, unable to move forward because of the stalemate that exists in our divisions.

The Presidential race has magnified this divide for me, and while people size up the candidates to see which one fits their value system most closely, the results of that decision will identify a much larger issue. Gone is the day when the US was united in the face of social and political issues, and even threats to our freedom. In the past 60-70 years we have experienced change at a dramatic rate, from our social system that found the need to support our economic systems through programs due to the Great Depression but allowed those programs to continue and grow even after the need had passed, from the institution of an income tax and removal of the US financial system from the gold standard which ultimately will prove to be an issue that erodes our prosperity back to the last century, and from the social upheavals of the 1960's that resulted mostly from the abuse of power in our government and loss of leadership on moral issues. If you are looking for a change in government, you need look no further than our own recent history that is threatening to divide the very institutions of our nation. The real candidate of change will be the one that returns us to the original democratic ideal that brought us to America in the first place. I am not sure that candidate is available to us yet, because the radical change that will be required can only happen when we all realize where we are going (see blog topic-How Long will Democracy Last).

I recently heard someone on talk radio announce that he is voting for the Democratic candidate because "the Democrats give us what we want, and the Republicans just take it away." Seems to me this is a common theme, and while the Republicans certainly have done their part to deserve the stigma of government mismanagement as much as anyone else, I think the idea that was voiced on that radio show is more dangerous yet. It signals a choice of the American people, a demographic shift that we are in the midst of right now, where people feel more comfort and security in allowing the government to take care of their basic needs than they do in determing those needs for themselves. We are slowly becoming the same form of centralized government that our ancestors would do anything to escape, including a 2 month sea passage in horrid conditions away from the place you were born and raised, just to escape government that held control over your property, religion and personal freedom. Think about it, we are voting now to give that control right back to the government that our ancestors abhorred!

I would pre-suppose that the worst areas of the country that are in the midst of the housing turmoil, where in some cases nearly 50% of the homes sold are sold out of bankruptcy, are mostly those areas that will vote Democratic in the next election. I'd like to see an overlay map illustrating that feature. The last election between President Bush and Al Gore illuminated the fact that in simplistic terms the inner cities voted for Gore and the vast areas of the US with lighter density voted for Bush. What is that telling us? It is telling me that the people that expect government to provide for them are mostly centralized in higher density areas, dependent on the public dole in the midst of higher crime and substance abuse issues. Those issues that this demographic faces are not issues that government can repair, only community and the courage to rise to a higher level of personal integrity can provide relief, not more government intervention and support programs. The fact that we are nearing a 50/50 split between those that want the government to provide for them in a relatively small overall area of the US, and those that want government to be diminshed in favor of personal liberty is cause for alarm, but I think we are going to quietly continue to move in that direction until we become a socialist nation before anyone figures it out.

There is evidence on both sides of the aisle that we are moving in that direction, even the Republican leadership is eroding our personal rights by allowing spying and wire tapping in the name of national defense. The fact is, if we choose to remain a self sustaining democracy, then we are going to be open to attacks that we simply cannot defend. In fact, if we are truly a free and open society, we should look on the attacks of others that hate that freedom as an occasion for celebration. We cannot be open to personal freedoms of thought, movement and ownership and closed to attacks from the outside, or we will inevitably lose those freedoms. We have a lot of very good people dealing with national defense issues every day, and I am thankful for them, but as Americans we should have a higher standard than the rest of the world when it comes to personal freedom in all areas of our society. We know who the bad guys are, get the court order to tap their phones and whomever is in contact with them and take care of it, but the rest of the American public should not be subjected to a blanket proclamation. The same is true of the sanctity of life issue, by turning over our rights to the government and its courts we can't be sure that one day national health care means they get to decide who lives and who is too expensive to keep, just as by turning over our private conversations means some degree of added security today may mean you are labled an enemy of the state tomorrow.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on their worst day would never trade personal freedom for government intervention, yet some would use their names in defense of government supporting people in need instead of their neighbors supporting that need. The premise that our young Democrats hold today, the same ideals that John Kennedy tried to establish where people take personal initiative in making our country better is not the same ideal that the Democratic leadership exhibits. I admire those that hold on to that ideal on the democratic side, but if they will just take a moment to look at the big picture they will see this is not the case today, they have been duped into something else. We have allowed our welfare system to overcome the position of the church and community in taking care of our own, we have allowed our government to exercise more and more control over our personal lives since the end of the Civil War, and now we have become so used to that control that we are willing to vote it away in the name of national health care.

I am still unsure where my vote will go in November, but regardless of those that even go so far as to say don't vote unless your candidate fulfills all of the "requirements" for your side, I plan to vote for someone. I encourage you to vote as well, and I hope that your vote will go toward uniting a country divided by policies we have allowed to separate us. Our democracy will not last if we allow our government to become what our ancestors risked everything to leave, please take a step back and consider the big picture, before its too late...

Healthcare a Basic Right?

We live in a complicated world. Anyone that has recently filled out a form, added an email account or dealt with any government agency or large company can tell you that. Things are not so simple as the days when our focus was on mere subsistence, of course they are not quite as easy as we have it these days either, but it seems we keep slowly moving down the path of complication. At my son's recent birthday party I was informed by another 6 year old that he "had a lot going on this summer." I wonder if that was the actual truth, or if he had heard that from a Mom or Dad that wore that phrase as a badge of honor. Seems to me that unless we have a lot going on we are not worthy of each other's respect, or perhaps not included in the natural sympathy we are expected to show for the busyness we have created.

Now I for one don't want to give up my hot showers, microwave and washing machine for a shot at simplicity, but I would sure like to have the time back that those conveniences were supposed to provide. No matter what we create to bank up time for ourselves, the decision still falls to us to organize and use our resources. It is our own fault for letting our society and culture of busyness eat away at the conveniences our modern society has provided. We are trading our simplicity away for more "stuff," and this trend will continue until we bury ourselves with extra burdens. As a Christian, I believe that anything which takes our focus away from God has a potential negative affect, whether or not the activity is generally positive or not. We can create a negative situation even by "over-volunteering" for good causes!

I have been trying to decide whether the whole issue of universal healthcare is a good decision or a bad one, whether or not this is a good thing that provides for the needs of many Americans, not just those facing issues of aging but all Americans that deserve a shot at the advances that our modern society has provided in medicine, or a bad one that forces us to sacrifice something important in order to have this important care. I am still on the fence about some of the issues, but universal healthcare is growing in importance for everyone and deserves a closer look. Are we adding healthcare to the role of busyness in our lives, to our badge of honor looking for sympathy at the amount of specialized care that we need, or are we actually taking care of patients that need this care in a way that makes our society a better place? When I get sick and need a doctor I want to be able to go and get it fixed, but I am not so sure that it is in my interest to have the government paying for it out of my taxes.

I recognize that perhaps my personal views are different from other folks, but at the same time my views are likely very similar to others. It seems that reconciling personal viewpoints in a way that improves the general condition of society is why we have government in the first place, whether or not we agree on the nature of government and what it is "supposed" to provide for citizens. The current healthcare "crisis" is basically a fiscal one, the costs continue to rise at an exponential rate for even basic care, forcing decisions to be made regarding the level of care that is appropriate for each individual. If the costs were not increasing so quickly, this would not be such a big issue, but since they are and expected to do nothing but continue to increase, in my opinion we should tackle the cost side of things at the same time as deciding who pays for it. I see 3 basic elements to rising healthcare, elements that may have legitimate importance to some and disdain for others, but nonetheless contribute to the fiscal crisis surrounding healthcare.

3 elements contributing to healthcare costs include:
1-Our legal system. It is no secret that malpractice insurance for doctors is a huge element of rising healthcare costs, not to mention the costs on the industry from mega-million dollar judgements against insurers, doctors and hospitals alike. There are some bad apples out there, but I think that merely making a doctor's record available to the public will take care of that in the marketplace, absolving the need to let the legal system take care of it. No one is perfect, people will make mistakes and people will die, but I am not so sure that every time someone dies it should result in a huge settlement. I see law firms advertising for certain people to call them if they fit within certain guidelines for a lawsuit, so that the firm can represent them in a situation they have already identified and now only have to convince the person that they have been "wronged" so that a suit can ensue. This is only to improve the bottom line of the firm, and a gross twisting of our legal system, leading to huge costs in healthcare that have to stop.
2-Government intervention. No one can argue that involving our national government in something so personalized as the doctor-patient relationship will add to complexity and cost. That is a given. What people rationalize is that the benefits of having the government pay for some or all of the care is worth the added cost, not considering that it will be our taxes that pay for any government program. For me, I think that the only way to sort out a patient's specialized needs is to let the doctor/pharmacist figure that out, then let private insurers deal with how much the premiums will cost to manage that care. Having our government involved will only add to the costs, and while I am for everyone getting the best care available, private insurers need to deal with the issue in order to improve the quality of care and keep the costs as low as possible. We don't need to add to that layers of government inefficiency that will make things take longer and cost more than they already do.
3-Drug Company Advertising. When the FDA allowed drug companies to advertise on national tv, our "need" for drugs went from the doctor's advice to that of the marketing agency. You could argue that the doctors were already under some pressure from the drug companies who make regular office visits with samples and profit sharing, but at least you could trust your doctor to make a decision in your best interest. Marketing has a powerful impact on our ability to make good decisions, how much "need" has been created by marketing from these companies is open to verification, but it exists and contributes to the overall costs of healthcare. We have over 100 million prescriptions annually for anti-depressants, the largest category of drugs sold in the US, you can't convince me that the need is that great without some assistance from advertising. They advertise and convince consumers that we have an issue worthy of taking a new pill, then we go to the doctor and convince him that we need that pill, then we take the pill and go back to the doctor for another pill to counteract the side affects of the first pill. I wish I could get a doctor to comment on this subject, because they are the ones that hold the keys to this answer and I am not qualified, but the costs due to advertising are a direct redistribution of wealth from our pockets to the media (so they can show more disturbing stuff to our kids so they need anti-depressants at an earlier age), ad agencies and drug companies. Advertising of drugs is the same as advertising hard liquor on tv and needs to stop.

Philosophically, I am for health care and consider it one of the best benefits any company can offer an employee. I own a business of my own and have provided healthcare for many years to my employees, and they always comment how important it is to them as well. The costs for the plan that existed in 1999 have basically gone from $1000 annually to about $5000 annually for the same number of employees, what has changed even more is the content of the plan. My hope has always been that insurance would be available to cover that catastrophic need, if an employee or a family member gets cancer or needs a major operation they will not have to declare bankruptcy in order to pay for it. The original plan was very reasonable and even included normal doctor's visits with a reasonable $20 copay. The copay had to be increased over the years from $20 to $30 and $50, and just this past year we were forced to go to a high deductible plan ($6000), but placed a significant amount ($500 to $1000) in an HSA account with a debit card for each employee and instructions to use that and let me know if they went over that amount so we could work something out. This satisfies the need that exists and mitigates the costs to a bearable amount, but I am already thinking about what happens next. If my company with less than 10 employees cannot bear the rising costs, how much worse must it be for larger ones? Once the costs rise again I will be forced to do one of several things-reduce the work force and continue to offer insurance, continue to reduce the coverage and push more and more of the burden toward the employee (same thing as raising taxes, takes money out of our pocket), or stop offering insurance altogether and put that money toward a pool to help in case of an emergency, buy health club memberships for the employees, or some other such compromise. If I were forced to provide the original level of coverage to all my employees today, then the company would exist only to provide that coverage instead of growing and I would either sell out or close the doors. If we do not contain the costs noted above, the every company in America will be faced with the same choice sooner or later.

What concerns me the most is that if our government takes over the issue, then we will have another albatross other than Social Security to pay for, the cost of such a program will strip the life out of the economy and force the government to pay for healthcare with huge tax increases. In many socialized nations with universal healthcare the tax rates are over 50% of income, is that worth the changes that would inevitably be forced on us? We would quickly move from a "free" society to one that is enslaved by our fiscal responsibility. Do not let the Socialists among us force us into this scenario, they want all wealth redistributed so there are no income gaps in our nation and the government takes care of everything. What needs to happen is private insurers work with companies to provide the best care at the lowest costs, churches are able to receive monetary and volunteer gifts that are appropriate to help people in need, and friends and neighbors step up to do the same. If we do this, then the care will improve, our social network be strengthened, our fiscal responsibility be maintained and our nation allowed to remain free and strong. If we adopt universal healthcare, then our nation will take another step toward socialism and we will continue to put more of our focus on government instead of God for our providence. The slide in this direction is slow and purposeful, we cannot continue to vote ourselves more benefits from the public till until our nation experiences a new form of slavery, the answer must be in our individual resourcefulness, private investment and personalized response to this crisis. Healthcare is important, especially for those Americans and their families who are working for a better tomorrow and not trying to "beat" the system, but it is not a "right." We have to decide the importance of universal healthcare as a nation and decide the best course to take, hopefully the simplest and least costly approach will be preferred even if it does not cover every need.

Whose Fault Was It?

It has been a long summer. I counted at one point a stretch of 19 straight days that I was out "on the road" working in June. Not a lot of time for family, relaxation or tending to the basic things of life for certain, but life goes on nonetheless. Bills still have to get paid, kids to their summer "stuff," groceries bought, gas in the car...just a lot to do even as many think of summer as "vacation." Maybe this little story will help put things back in perspective, and give you a little relief from the summer heat.

We had a small water leak from our refrigerator this past week, when I was home for a few minutes between trips my wife noticed that the wood floors near the fridge had separated slightly and were bowed at the edges. I thought it was curious but did not give it much thought other than a cursory inspection, and went off to bed. The next day the situation was a bit more evident, the slight warping had moved outward to a few more boards, so we decided to investigate. Eager to avoid a trip under the house for a leak or some other source, I wanted to take a look at the only appliance with water involved that was in the vicinity-the fridge. Sure enough, as we pulled it out, we found a valve that transferred water to the ice maker was leaking, the leak was dripping down and running along the very slight cracks in the wood floor so it was not very conspicuous. I turned the water off to the fridge, but the damage had been done. The seeping water had warped several boards that would have to be sanded and repaired.

Over the next few days, the slightly warped floor issue was pretty much stabilized to about a 10 foot area, not really a huge deal but enough that you could feel it when you walked over it. I thought about calling the floor guy to have it sanded and repaired, but after looking at the floor and trying to decide where we would have to re-apply the coating to the entire floor to make it look correct again, I decided to take a shot at calling our insurance company to see if the homeowner's policy covered such things. Lo and behold it turns out that such damage is covered, and they would be sending a check for the damage after the estimator took a look at it. He made sure to tell us to keep the faulty part, because they would try and recover damages from the refrigerator manufacturer.

After he left, I started thinking about that. Whose fault was it? I guess the manufacturer made the thing, so they must be responsible, right? But I suppose that the story will not end there, because if you look inside the part you can see evidence of some calcium deposits. I feel sure the manufacturer has a case against the water softener people since the damage to the valve could have been caused by those deposits. The attorneys will no doubt have a meeting to discuss culpability and loss due to damage, you know, lawyer type stuff. The billing will probably reflect the legal opinion of several key attorneys whose experience will also be reflected in the cost of the consultation, after all, they have several years of school to pay for. After the meeting they will advise the manufacturer to hire an expert to examine the part and decide what went wrong. The expert will spend several hours at $100/hr or so, he may have to consult with a design engineer who will undoubtedly notice that the part has a "Made in China" sticker on it, concluding that the part was outsourced by the manufacturer to a Chinese company that was undoubtedly at fault, because they should know that we Americans like our ice convenient and properly softened. That's it, it was their fault, case closed. Estimated cost is approximately 5 refrigerators and 2 new wood floors, to be recovered by increasing my homeowner's policy slowly over the next 10 years, and including a percentage to be amortized by everyone in my nearest zip code.

What really needs to happen is that we develop a government committee to examine the costs of the production, sales and shipping of that part to the American manufacturer, then establish the costs of a flight and $1/hr labor for an underage Chinese worker to come over here and sand my floors smooth and re-clear them. That has to be cheaper than the whole process as it exists now, and could lead to better relations with the Chinese on a cultural level. The only person that would be out anything is my floor guy, but he got paid once to put the floor in the first time so he should be OK. The guest worker could then apply for citizenship while they were here, or just defect and request asylum due to the intense political pressure of the job. The cost of getting them here is already absorbed but the government committee's budget paid for by our taxes, so they can be a productive member of society almost immediately.

So there you have it, a reasonable solution to the water leak issue and the blame properly placed on the manufacturer of the fridge, the water softener company and eventually the real culprit, the Chinese company that made the thing without considering American tastes in the first place. I'll just keep making my homeowner's policy payment in the meantime until they sort that all out, in the end figuring I don't deserve to cash the insurance check because if I was still using those old plastic ice trays instead of expecting my ice to appear out of the front of my refrigerator door, this would never have happened in the first place...

How Long Will Democracy Last?

Alexander Tyler, a late 18th century Scottish history professor, had some comments on Democratic government that seem well placed today. His comments were not about the new American Republic that had just come on the scene, but about the rise and fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years prior. His comments carry some points in common to our own republic today, although he could not have envisioned where the American experiment was going.

Tyler suggested that true democracy is temporary in nature, and follows a sort of life cycle seen in the Athenian fall, and many other civilizations if you think about it. The life cycle includes the following stages:

1. Bondage to Spiritual Faith .
2. Spiritual Faith to Courage.
3. Courage to Liberty.
4. Liberty to Abundance.
5. Abundance to Complacency.
6. Complacency to Apathy.
7. Apathy to Dependence.
8. Dependence to Bondage.

The average lifespan of a democracy over history, using this model, takes around 200 years. Some of these stages take very little time, and others take many decades, but it seems the inexorable tide continues through this cycle as Tyler suggested. It does not take much effort to apply the history of America to this model, and placing our life cycle today somewhere in the 5-7 range depending on your personal view. It seems that as we "allow" government to replace liberty, it is as if we are winding up a big rubber band that gets closer and closer to the point where it breaks loose. That would have been the case in the American Revolution, the French Revolution and ultimately every revolution that has been fought to "free" people from bondage. We replace faith with government programs, freedom with protection, personal accountability with "rights," all the way to the point where the society we created has ceased to be a democracy. You can see this today in many European countries, even those claiming to be free and democratic, where in reality the situation is some sort of pseudo-Socialism as the people have discovered they can vote for candidates or structures that provide personal benefits in lieu of personal freedoms.

Personally, I prefer government to take a lesser role, I don't want the government to tell me how to live my life, especially in return for a program that may or may not help me have a better life. As a nation, we established the direction of the federal government during the Civil War, that the federal government will centralize power over states and ultimately individuals. That direction will continue until the day the people take that power back, either through a cultural change that says enough is enough or through some calamity that forces a new start. I think it is time for Americans to stop taking the easy way out, stop depending on government to provide for our needs when we should be doing it ourselves, stop depending on others to define our relationship to our God and stop depending on our leaders to work to supply our needs in order to stay elected. Let's put people in positions to get the job done and expect that we have some responsibility to do the same, regardless of whether or not "our" person is elected.

Government exists to satisfy a need for the common good, to provide a central authority where larger needs such as common defense would not be appropriately handled by individuals. In the beginning of a democracy we see anarchy alongside freedom, later to be replaced with policies and regulations alongside government intervention. There are many who are labeled subversives, and rightly so when they use force to achieve their goals, but throughout the history of democratic government it has been the "subversives" that are now considered the heroes of society. Our Founding Fathers expected to be captured and hanged as subversives, but instead we lionize their activities as those of courageous men. Good thing it worked out that way for their (and our) sake. I suppose the term "subversive" only applies to those who failed to achieve productive change, and not to those who took a great risk and achieved something.

We are biblically called to provide prayerful support to the leaders of our government, and that counts whether or not you believe their actions to be in line with your own or not, but we as individuals fail our higher calling when we sit back and let things happen through our own apathy. The simplest power that we share in a democracy is the power to vote, and I hope and trust that every one will do that, regardless of who I think is "right" or "wrong." There is a local primary in VA today pitting Scott Sayre against Emmitt Hanger, personally I do not have a clear understanding of which candidate to vote for as I think they are both good choices for very different reasons, but I am hopeful that people will get out and vote absed on their conscience and then be prepared to help support the winner, instead of withdrawing if their guy is not elected. Either candidate will do a good job for VA in terms of keeping government smaller, keeping taxes low and supporting the conservative views of the region, so vote for your choice and exercise your democratic rights to support our republic and hopefully extend or alter the life span of our democracy.

No tractors left in Kansas...

When the words left Governor Kathleen Sebelius' mouth, I was stunned. As residents were pulling dead and injured neighbors out of the rubble from an F5 tornado, she was suggesting that the response would be slowed by National Guard deployments to Iraq that included men and tractors. Was the Kansas governor suggesting that instead of focusing on what we could do to help and assist in the almost total devastation in Greensburg, Kansas, this was an opportunity to take a shot at the was on national leadership? Seems out of place for a Democrat devoted to caring for the people, or is it? The fact that over 80% of the local guard unit was intact and functioning did not seem to enter into her mind, and it appeared from news accounts that the response was going as well as could be expected given the situation. I fear that the governor really believes that government exists to solve her problems instantly, and this is yet another example of how incorrect that assumption is. Neighbors, law enforcement and fire fighters in the community are the ones that risked their lives, they were the only ones in a position to accomplish anything in the important hours following the tornado. Did she really expect the guard to handle it?

Regardless of her intention, whether it was true frustration at a lack of immediate suport, a shot at fellow Kansas presidential aspirant and rival Sam Brownback, or a statement against Republican leadership at the federal level, I think her comments were rather misplaced the day after 9 people died. Someone should remind Ms. Sebelius that this is not the aftermath of Katrina, where widespread damage made the FEMA response agonizingly slow and worthy of criticism and eventual reform, this is an event that while terrible in terms of loss of life and property cannot be compared to failures such as the Katrina aftermath. It seems that any problem or catastrophe these days triggers a response from some people that brings to light a much larger issue, an issue of what our government is here to do in the first place. Each side shows up to prove they were doing their job, but the real issue is what job needs to be done?

I am really trying to understand what would make someone in a position of leadership and power say such words after a catastrophe like the Greensburg tornado. With an open mind, I am trying to understand how we have managed to have such conflicting points of view, and what we can do to help each other understand the other side. I want to understand Ms. Sebelius and her point of view, even though I believe she had a lapse of judgement in the timing of her comments. I think what we have as an underlying issue is a basic conflict, a conflicting opinion of what our government is supposed to do vs. what we as citizens are supposed to do. I am assuming that she believes that government exists to solve the problems of society, and lawmakers and leaders should plan for all contingencies in order to take the responsibility away from the citizen and place it in the hands of the federal government. I think she believes government exists to serve the needs (all of them) of the people, partially as a mandate to secure her position as a leader and member of the "elite" and partly out of humanitarian desires that may be well founded. I am making these assumptions because I hold different views and am trying to understand hers, but the basic assumptions are so conflicting that middle ground seems difficult.

The governor's comments do little for my impression that Democrats consider society their playground, where manipulation of social programs and entitlements serve to protect the elite's position in society as priority, but the real issues confronting people's lives are not dealt with. There are people out there that really think we can solve our problems with more government intervention, and there is no middle ground in that argument. I believe there is a place for government intervention, especially in natural disasters like this where the local and regional response would be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster, where we can do more together instead of as individuals in areas like national defense and economic policies, but I do not think that government intervention belongs in our neighborhoods and local communities. Over our nation's history we have steadily moved away from our personal freedoms and placed them in the hands of our national government, sometimes willingly out of great need during the Great Depression and at other times unwillingly out of great passion during the Civil war. There is no doubt that the programs designed in the 1940's were necessary to help recover from the Great Depression, but instead of returning to normal after that crisis subsided we allowed that to be the starting point of an even greater "trade" of our personal freedom for federal subsidy.

I will give you a current example. We spend a gross amount of money on entitlement and welfare programs in the US today, that much we can agree on. These programs are administered on a federal level and budgets created that consume a great deal of our national resources. I think most Democrats think people like myself intend to get rid of those programs altogether to affect some sort of bottom line or enforce some "self-determination" ideal where everyone needs to work in order to eat. That is not the case. I recognize that some people are in situations where they need help, but I am very concerned when that help comes from Washington DC lawmakers who do not know the individual circumstances and whose intention appears to be an attempt to trade votes for cash.

I would propose welfare reform in the following way, give the people their money back through tax credits equal to the amount spent at the federal level and let the local communities and churches handle it. They know the situation and the people involved, and can best prepare assistance that provides what is needed and a means to return to productive society as soon as possible, without reams of paperwork and useless waste getting in the way. Americans are very giving people, and if even a percentage of Americans turned over those tax savings to local community boards and churches, I believe that vastly more work could be done and more importantly the right work would be done. We could use a rifle instead of a shotgun to solve people's real issues. This is a very simplified view of the concept of course, but I used this illustration to show what is different about the basic concept, and how that difference is used to paint each "side" into a corner with no middle ground. We must find that middle ground, and we will disagree, but the current situation of spending and expecting all our cares to be removed by the government must be met somewhere closer to reality and less along "party" lines. If it continues, we will walk down the path of fiscal ruin and personal loss of freedom to a point where there is no turning back until disaster comes, then the whole debate won't matter much.