The Perpetual Pessimism of Protectionists
Many proponents of protectionism and trade barriers state as their cause the need to protect American jobs and the manufacturing sector from the ravages of global competition. Aside from the fact that this argument takes for granted an inability of the American workforce to adapt to and thrive in a global marketplace, the benefits of freer trade and increased competition far outweigh the costs of lost jobs in the manufacturing sector. In fact, relaxed trade policies typically result in an increase in both total jobs and revenue in the freer marketplace, as has been the case in the U.S. since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or, NAFTA.
To expand on the benefits, or perhaps, the lack of adverse effects, of NAFTA, as a prominent example of free trade policy, let's look at the U.S. unemployment rate. Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, unemployment has averaged 5.07%. During the 14 prior years (1980-1993), unemployment averaged 7.11%. Combined with the 17% growth in total U.S. jobs since 1994, these statistics make clear just how unfounded the fear of the loss of American jobs as a result of freer trade is. That is not to say that the domestic manufacturing sector has not suffered decreased employment levels (despite an increase in total output) as a result of the implementation of NAFTA, however, free trade or not, manufacturing jobs will continue to be replaced by advancing technology with increasing rapidity.
Jobs aside, the benefits to the American consumer alone make an air-tight case for free trade. It is often noted that consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity in the U.S. This figure should demonstrate the importance of protecting the consumer in spite of the manufacturing job bank. When consumers have the right to choose, market competition drives innovation and provides access to the best products at the lowest prices. A free market allowed to function naturally invariably results in a higher standard of living for all participants.
Indeed, the future of the U.S. job market (as will be the case in all developed and developing countries in time) lies in high-skill--and high-pay--jobs. Education will continue to and increasingly play an important role in national economic development as low-skill jobs continue to be replaced by the technological innovations of highly educated high-skill workers (take a look at the Lexus factory in Japan). America will have to, and will certainly be able to, adapt to the new global economic landscape despite the perpetual pessimism of protectionists.
Our free market expands the freedom that makes the U.S. such a great country and dominant global power. It is this value of freedom that presents the most compelling case for decreased barriers to international trade and should provide the basis for any debate on the subject. Determine for yourself if the benefits outweigh the costs, but ask yourself, "does the American consumer deserve the right to a free marketplace, or does the American worker deserve the right to government enforced protection from the global marketplace?"
Celebrity Endorsements & Democracy
Many of the remaining Presidential candidates have received high-profile celebrity endorsements. According to many surveys, these endorsements sway few voters' decisions at the polls. Nevertheless, it is quite an irresponsible practice which under the best circumstances has no benefit. These endorsements could, however, cause much harm to American democracy, and celebrities should therefore stifle their desire to influence the election process in this manner.
A proclivity to advance one's own political ideology is certainly understandable, but these celebrities must set aside their ego and realize that A, they may be wrong about what is best for the country, and B, their fans, the people who may be influenced by their endorsement, may have a different set of values and might in fact prefer the country to move in the opposite direction. A celebrity endorsement serves only to facilitate uninformed voting, and thus does a great disservice to fans and, ultimately, to the country.
The best-case result of a celebrity endorsement would be that it had no effect on the voting population whatsoever; all voters made well-informed decisions at the polls. The worst-case scenario, however, would be a large percentage of the population being swayed by charismatic celebrities. A scenario which would result in the determining factor in a major election being how well-liked the candidate's endorsers are, rather than who is most capable of performing the functions of the office in a manner which is consistent with the values of the majority of the voting public.
Celebrities could serve American democracy well in another way. Their desire to improve our government and our country could be put to productive use by campaigning to urge voters to research candidates and issues and make well-informed voting decisions. This would go great lengths toward strengthening our democracy, and if a celebrity's political ideology does in fact serve the needs and desires of the American people, well-informed voters would vote accordingly, allowing celebrities to further their cause in a much more responsible and appropriate manner. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."
As celebrity political endorsements have absolutely no benefit to the country, and may only harm it, celebrities must recognize the danger they pose to American democracy and, for the good of the public, put their efforts to better use. Rather than attempting to influence the election process by facilitating ill-informed voting, they should empower citizens by using their influence to urge that voters do the appropriate research and make well-informed decisions at the polls.
The Electoral College & The Presidency
Many Americans believe that the President should be elected by popular vote, and fail to see the important role that the Electoral College plays in our election process. The Electoral College is, however, an important aspect of American democracy.
The Modern Publius explains:
Since the 2000 election many have charged that it is time to do away with the Electoral College. I would have to say Hamilton was correct in the inclusion of the Electoral College. As Hamilton, himself describes the Electoral College in Federalist 68…“…The immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations… the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to center in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.”
As Hamilton puts it in Federalist 68…“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”
A Cost Benefit Analysis Of...Universal Healthcare
To expand on "Healthcare costs redistributed from poor to rich through increased taxes on upper income levels" for the uninitiated, any benefit that a universal healthcare system would have to the poor would be offset by the detrimental effects of increased taxes on economic growth, including higher prices and higher unemployment.
Who Will Get The Glory?
United States President #44 will assuredly bring their political party into a golden age of reverence and esteem, be it the Republican, Democrat, or Green Party. The struggling economy is likely to stabilize by the end of this year, and will almost certainly rebound swiftly during the first year of the next President's first term. Progress in Iraq will continue to make leaps and bounds toward total self-sustainment and the presiding commander-in-chief will surely be showered with praise and given credit for "fixing George W.'s mess." It is for these reasons that the 2008 Presidential election is of crucial importance to both Democrats and Republicans.
The country, however, can not afford to have the Democratic party look like the savior of the United States to the American people. Such high public esteem would result in little resistance to the socialist reforms that come under the guise of protecting and providing for citizens. With these reforms come government programs and regulations which result in the loss of individual freedoms and grave damage to our economy. Unfortunately, the seeds have already been sewn by Democrats quick to place blame on the Grand Old Party for the problems in Iraq and the current economic downturn, problems which have arisen as a result of a multitude of complex factors, including inadequate pre-war planning in the former case and poor lending practices (on the part of both lenders and borrowers) and market manipulation by the Federal Reserve in the latter case. Of course, it is easy and serves the Democratic party well to blame George W. Bush and the GOP explicitly, but that is simply misleading and blatant manipulation of the American people. Many Democrats also like to point to the increase in total federal spending under the George W. Bush administration in an effort to shift attention away from their spendthrift habits, but that increase is primarily due to two ongoing wars and a failure to control the spending and pork-barrel projects authorized by congress. (It should be mentioned that the current Democrat-controlled congress has an approval rate far below that of the President--18% to 34% according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll).
So although Republicans are faced with a much-less-than-ideal pool of candidates to choose from this primary season, it is imperative that the party come together this November and rally around the GOP candidate; if only to ensure that Democrats do not receive credit for the inevitable progress of the economy and Iraq war. The resulting sway of public-opinion would only plunge us further in the direction of a socialist government in the ensuing years under a Democratic President and Congress.
Vote Smart!
I strongly encourage everyone to vote in the both the primary and general Presidential elections, but before you do, make sure you have done your research. It is all too important to our country and the democratic system that voters make well informed decisions for this great responsibility to be taken lightly. There is a plethora of resources available online to assist you in this decision making process, and any time spent researching candidates is time well spent, be it 5 minutes or 5 hours. The following links should point you in the right direction:
Wikipedia - Just type in a candidate's name and find the 'Political Positions' article.
Or, take the easy route and try one of these candidate-matching quizzes:
USA Today Candidate Match Game
ABC News Match-o-Matic
However you do it, find the candidate best suited to represent you and give them your support at the polls this election year.
Welfare & The Republican Party
The Democratic party is widely considered to be the compassionate, benevolent political party, in contrast to the GOP, which is seen as the proxy of corporate interests and the rich. As Democrats are typically proponents of government welfare programs and direct aid to the less fortunate, they have developed a reputation as humanitarians. While these efforts do in deed provide some benefit to the needy, economically they cause more harm than they do good. Republican fiscal policy, although commonly regarded as favorable only to the wealthy, in fact, promotes the general welfare of the low and middle income classes much more effectively, albeit indirectly.
The Democratic approach toward promoting the welfare of the American public is a sort of forced charity, a policy of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. The Republican approach is to implement measures and adopt policies which facilitate saving and investment (i.e. a low capital gains tax). Saving and investing provide the capital needed to create and expand businesses. A direct result of this activity is the creation of the jobs needed to run these new and expanded businesses. Key to promoting public welfare is the creation of jobs. Under a redistributive system, the capital needed to fund this expansion is spread thin, diluting its economic power.
Consider this:If you had three million dollars, you could redistribute it across America, or you could invest it. If you chose the former, each person in America would receive less than one penny each. Not enough to change anyone's life and certainly not enough to lift anyone out of poverty. On the other hand, if you chose to invest that $3,000,000, you could create jobs in one of three ways. One, you could start a business, directly creating the jobs needed to run it. Two, you could invest in another business, providing it with the capital needed to expand, which would in turn result in more jobs. Finally, you could put the money into a savings account, providing the banking system with capital needed to grant business loans, which, as was already explained, will result in increased jobs. These jobs certainly have the potential to lift many people out of poverty.
The point illustrated by this example is simple: The further a sum of money is spread, or redistributed, the further is its power to benefit the less fortunate lessened.
Rights Of Business Owners Going Up In Smoke
Several states have recently enacted legislation forbidding private business owners to permit smoking within their establishments. This legislation is not only unwarranted but also unnecessary. Clearly these state governments believe it is their right and responsibility to protect their citizens from themselves. One may argue that these laws are intended to protect consumers from unsafe public environments over which they have no control. This argument is easily dismissed. Individuals are free to patronize businesses of their choosing, and may enter those establishments only of their own free will. This basic tenet of the free marketplace is what makes this anti-smoking legislation both unwarranted and unnecessary. The further we progress in this direction, the further are our rights and freedoms limited; a road which ends in a dismal society reminiscent of that described by Ayn Rand in the novel Anthem, in which individual freedom is sacrificed for the (supposed) good of the masses.
Individuals deserve the right to and are more than capable of deciding for themselves what is best for them without the hand of government pushing or forcing them in any given direction. If an individual does not wish to be exposed to secondhand smoke, the free market empowers him or her to patronize whichever establishment meets this need and deny their business to those which choose not to. It is in this manner that the free market functions as a true democracy. If, in fact, the majority of citizens do prefer a smoke-free environment, businesses which cater to this preference will find it much easier to thrive under these demands than those that choose to allow smoking in their establishment.
That being said, should the legislature still feel an overwhelming need to protect its citizens from secondhand smoke filled environments, rather than enact laws which further limit the freedoms of private business owners, they might instead launch a public awareness campaign advising citizens of the dangers of inhaling secondhand smoke. Provide the people with the information, and let them then choose for themselves whether or not to continue patronizing establishments which allow smoking. Empowering citizens, rather than restricting their rights, will provide a much more agreeable solution.
You would be hard pressed to find support for a law that would disallow smoking within a private household. Individuals are no less free, however, to avoid entering a private business as they are a private home. Are guests in our home much different than customers in a store or restaurant? Both enter and leave of their own volition and neither are in any way forced to enter or stay. Why, then, do state legislatures see a need to prevent the permission of smoking within a private business establishment but not within a private household? Are business owners any more responsible for the health of customers than homeowners of guests?
One of the more unfortunate side-effects of the implementation of these clean indoor air acts is the financial loss of small businesses which invested thousands of dollars in separate, state-of-the-art dining rooms for their smoking customers, which have been rendered useless. These smoking areas are completely enclosed, separated from non-smoking areas and feature ventilation systems which ensure that the non-smoking section is not contaminated with secondhand smoke. Nevertheless, these private small business owners face hefty fines should they allow a customer to smoke even within the ventilated smoking section.
As our governments continue to assume responsibility over the health of individual citizens and enact legislation designed to protect us from ourselves, we continue to lose precious personal freedoms and any sense of individual responsibility that we may have left. New York City's trans-fat ban is evidence of the spread of this legislative mentality, a mentality which will ultimately lead to a parent-child relationship between our government and ourselves wherein we are told what is good for us and we must obey. Does that appeal to anyone?
Virtues of the eBay Economy
For proof of the effectiveness of the free market, one need look no further than to the example provided by online auction giant eBay. The fundamental principles of the eBay market have allowed the site to prosper and individuals to reap the benefits. An economic system that adheres to these principles and learns from eBay's successes would earn its adopters a valuable position in the global economy and the geopolitical sphere.
And these key principles are...
Freedom of Participation: eBay places no limits on who may or may not engage in the auction market. Anyone with an internet connection (who may be considered citizens of eBay) can participate regardless of race, gender, income or nationality. Freedom of participation means freedom of opportunity. The poor buy from the rich, the rich buy from the poor; everyone has equal opportunity to succeed or fail on a level playing field. Which leads us to the next principle...
Minimal Regulation: Rules on eBay are limited to one purpose. Protect users from dishonest and unfair practices. With such a minor level of involvement by eBay (the central government of this particular market), costs to users are kept at low and reasonable levels, leaving sellers free to conduct business without the burden of having to provide any significant amount of their income to the regulatory practices of the governing body. Consider the costs of increased regulation:Were eBay to impose, for instance, a tariff on all goods bought from, say, China, costs to outside buyers would be increased as they must now pay a fee to eBay to make the transaction. That is unless Chinese sellers lowered their prices enough to cover that increase in cost. Of course, the tariff income collected would not be going to the Chinese sellers, so they may be able to maintain the same volume of goods sold, but whether they lower prices or not, the tariff would result in lower revenue to China. Lower revenue in China would mean a decrease in the number of Chinese bidders in the rest of the eBay community (read: lower demand, lower revenue). Lower revenue throughout the community would of course result in a reduction of each member's purchasing power in the marketplace. This is the best possible outcome. If the Chinese sellers aren't so kind as to lower their prices, we will be much worse off. Eliminating the low-cost advantage of the Chinese sellers would raise the bar of price competition to a new level. The resulting increase in prices would leave the eBay community faced with higher costs to satisfy their wants and needs, the response to which will be widespread price raising throughout the market in order to cover these costs. And what is the term used to define a general increase in prices? Inflation. Inflation means everybody's dollar now has less purchasing power in the marketplace, not to mention a drop in the value of everyone's investments, savings and paychecks. One way to keep prices down and avoid inflation...
No Barriers to Entry: Affording everyone the opportunity to sell on eBay makes competition for buyers keen, which will inevitably result in lower prices and increased efficiency in the market. This can be explained quite easily with a simple illustration:Imagine a buyer looking to sell a vintage 1969 Gibson Les Paul electric guitar. After a quick search he finds that no one else has a '69 Les Paul up for bid, and so he decides to start the bidding at $5,000. Now imagine a second seller with an identical guitar--same condition, same shipping estimate, same everything. After a quick search he finds the first guitar and sees that the starting bid is $5,000. Where would you expect him to start the bidding for his guitar? If he wants bids, he'll start the bidding at a lower price, after all, that is his only edge. As more and more sellers enter this particular market, the trend will continue and prices will drop lower and lower. Buyers will be able to satisfy this particular want and will do so at the lowest possible price, freeing up money to be spent elsewhere. In this way, the buying power of every individual is increased and as they use that power to satisfy more wants and needs, the sellers that can offer the best products at the lowest prices will see profits climb higher and higher. The availability of these quality products at widely affordable prices will undeniably lead to a higher standard of living for every eBay community member.
It is as a result of strict adherence to these key principles that eBay is a flourishing marketplace and excellent model of the success achieved through limited interference in the free-market. Excessive controls and regulation is a sure way to limit economic prosperity and cause more harm to the global economy than the benefits of the intended results are worth.
Harmony In Healthcare
The debate over universal health care is sure to be a key issue in the upcoming presidential election. No one would dare argue that affordable and accessible quality health care for all citizens is not a highly desirable objective. The argument is over the means of achieving that goal.
One commonly offered solution is the implementation of a compulsory insurance program. Two notable supporters of this type of proposal are Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Under this plan individuals would be required by legislative mandate to obtain health insurance coverage. Assuming full compliance, this would ensure that every individual was covered in some capacity and would be able to receive health care if needed. But at what cost? No further examination of the matter is necessary to identify the fundamental flaw that lies at the surface of this proposition. Having read this far, you have no doubt already identified it for yourself. Under this plan individuals would be required by legislative mandate to obtain health insurance coverage. Required by legislative mandate. Implementation of a compulsory insurance universal health care program would require the sacrifice of another individual freedom.
An insurance funded program serves the same ideological purpose as tax funded programs: the social redistribution of costs. A noble idea, but is it worth the loss of still more of our personal freedoms? Not if similar results can be achieved through less costly processes.
While ideal results may not be attainable without requiring the sacrifice of certain freedoms or putting a heavy burden on taxpayers, there are many avenues toward monumental improvement to the current system that bear no such extreme costs. Voluntary cooperation and compromise are two key pathways to success.
In order to move forward in this process toward a consentient program of universal health care, we must accept that at the heart of the issue is a question of personal values. In the case of the compulsory insurance proposal, the question is whether you value more the availability of quality health care to all Americans, or the sanctity of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Neither value can or should be repudiated, and so we'll find that compromise will provide the least bumpy ride down the avenue toward our objective.
What we need is a program that strikes a balance between social responsibility and individual responsibility. One possible program would combine voluntary contributions of those that value social responsibility with Health Savings Accounts for those that value individual responsibility. The voluntary contributions would provide for the social redistribution of costs without reaching into the pocket of those that do not wish to participate in that effort. It (almost) goes without saying that those who do not contribute to that pool of money shall not be permitted to draw from it. Those who do contribute to the pool may elect to adopt a generous policy of distributing more where it is needed more. Perhaps, though, this program will prove to be too good to be true upon further evaluation and crumble under more intense scrutiny. This short paragraph is by no means intended to be a blueprint for the future of America's health care, only to inspire thought.
On both sides of this important issue lie numerous valid and legitimate arguments, none of which can be dismissed out of hand. Unless by some miracle the personal values of the entire voting public should suddenly align, compromise and balance will be the paths of least resistance in forging a widely accepted and popular solution.
Taxpayer Abuse & the Spread of Socialism
The exposé entitled Taxpayer Money Spent on Car Leases by AP writer Rebekah Metzler presented yet another example of the ever widening disconnect between legislators and taxpayers. It is a disconnect that threatens to damage our economy while plunging us further in the direction of socialism and further away from individual responsibility and the personal freedoms identified as inalienable by the Declaration of Independence.
While this is a minor abuse of taxpayers' money on a relative scale, it is no less severe in implication. Legislators elected to represent their constituents' best interests are becoming increasingly cavalier with their tax dollars in misguided efforts to do so. While these efforts are typically well intentioned, they are too often subject to the influence of powerful special interest groups and resultingly benefit few at the expense of many. The particular example of public funded "private" transportation offered in this case would be difficult to describe as "well intentioned." It illustrates well the growing mindset among legislators in which tax receipts are viewed as collections from a faceless, mindless entity, namely, the collective American taxpayer. This entity is believed to have no wants or needs of its own, no preferences or disfavors and to exist solely for the purpose of providing an endless pool of money from which to draw on to fund countless government programs and, in this specific instance, lavish perks for government employees. In reality, however, this entity does have wants and needs, preferences and disfavors, and the face of every American taxpayer.
In what way does taxpayer funding of $400 to $1,000 monthly leases for elected representatives (as reported by Metzler) serve to benefit constituents? Well, supporters might argue that if taxpayer paid leases facilitate travel by officials which results in more effective governing, the added cost to the taxpayer would be well worth the benefits received from a higher level of performance. One might counter that argument, however, with the claim that elected representatives are in no need of the extra incentive to govern more effectively provided by public funded leases. Surely they receive enough incentive from their desire to retain the favor of their constituents whom they depend on for the votes that provide for their livelihood as a well paid government official.
At the base of this issue lies the most glaringly obvious evidence of taxpayer abuse. The sole reason a public official would choose to fund the leasing of a vehicle through taxpayer money is because they do not deem the vehicle to be worth their own money at the same price. Therein also lies evidence of the "faceless entity" mindset of our legislature. Our representatives have no objection to taking money out of the pocket of this entity to pay for things they, as private consumers, see as not worth the cost. What's more, the needs these vehicles satisfy could undoubtedly be satisfied for a much lower cost. But once again, the legislature sees no reason to be prudent with the money of this faceless entity.
It is the assumption of our legislature that the pool of tax receipts is the equivalent of a blank check written by the American taxpayer with which "representatives" are free to spend whatever they deem necessary to satisfy purposes which they determine will contribute to the greater good of society. Purposes which, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are, as was already mentioned, heavily influenced by special interest groups. There is no need to go into greater detail here the extent to which our representatives, again, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are influenced by these groups; this has been evidenced on numerous occasions elsewhere. It need only be said that, more often than not, the liberal use of taxpayer money has been consistently shown to benefit few at the expense of many. In the case of publicly funded vehicle leases, the representatives driving the vehicles at the expense of the taxpayer represent the few, the taxpayers the many. Tax receipts, for that reason among many others, should be drawn on only for purposes which explicitly benefit the tax-paying citizens, whom should be considered as investors in government. Just as in private investment, the balance of risk and reward should be carefully considered before committing capital to a potentially harmful and costly endeavor. Our representatives have strayed far from that basic prerequisite to successful investing, however, disregarding the risk of others (i.e. the taxpayers) in favor of the material rewards to themselves offered by success. Widespread cavalier spending of taxpayers' money has reached such dangerous heights that this kind of blatant abuse of using tax revenue to fund vehicle leases is regarded as acceptable and reasonable even by the National Taxpayers Union.
To put it simply, a change in attitude toward balancing risk and reward to effect prudent use of tax money is vital to the success of the American economy and to slowing the ever-growing tide of socialist reforms being spread by well intentioned but ill-informed legislators.
Merry Christmas!
I'm pleased to see that so far this year there has been a noticeable decline in the amount of anti-Christmas rhetoric being spread by various religious minority and civil rights groups. As someone who celebrates Christmas, I respect the right of every individual to celebrate religious holidays of their faith, in private or in public, and would by no means seek to prevent them from doing so freely because it is not what I happen to believe. I don't think it is asking too much to expect the same in return.
Christmas displays and decorations are in no way defamatory of Judaism, Islam or any other faith. If it is the absence of a representation of their faith that religious minorities find offensive, then they should by all means respond in kind with displays and decorations of their own, rather than call for the removal of the Christmas decor. Speaking for myself, if I lived in a predominantly Jewish community, you would certainly not find me taking issue with any Hanukkah decorations. You would, however, find Christmas lights on my house and a plastic Santa Clause on the lawn. The anti-Christmas movement is a product of a developing culture in this country wherein the will of the many is sacrificed to appease the few. This is a modern social attitude that extends far beyond the Christmas issue. In a country with such strong democratic roots, it is surprising to me how often we must bend under the pressure of protecting the interests of a small group of individuals despite the interests of the majority. We are so afraid of offending one small group of people, that we invariably succumb to the pressure and eliminate the cause of the offense. In doing so, however, we end up offending the majority of the people, whose interests were skirted in favor of appeasing the minority.
Let's not forget that Christmas displays and decorations are intended to celebrate one particular religious holiday, not to disparage another. Please appreciate the right of a religious faction to celebrate their faith freely.
Hillary Clinton & the Spending Spree Mentality
It is a wonder how Hillary Clinton manages to stay in contention among the presidential candidates. In a country where one damaging quote of a person seeking public office is so often followed by a near endless stream of editorials and 'mud-slinging' by opponents--the spread of which is usually only curbed by a public explanation and/or apology--which is typically followed by a noticeable decrease in public support, it is amazing that so many of Hillary's public blunders seem to have gone unnoticed. Take for instance her comment in an October 11th interview with the Boston Globe editorial board, "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." Even in context, this quote speaks volumes to the spending spree mindset of the Senator. While this has been widely publicized, it has seemingly had no effect on her position as a leading Democratic candidate. Even a quick glance at her voting record on fiscal issues reveals a person content to spend whatever it takes on promoting the general welfare of the public--well, that is except for the general welfare of the collective American taxpayer, whose dwindling paycheck is apparently of no concern to Senator Clinton. Hillary herself put it best at a Democratic party fundraiser in 2004, where she boldly stated "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." The fact that she intends to take things away from us is not debatable--whether it's for the common good, however, is. Surely I am not alone in preferring a little more money in my pocket to a government funded Woodstock Concert museum. Well, perhaps I am, as the poll results announced week after week seem to indicate as she remains a top contender for the presidency.
Federalism & Freedom
This country was founded on the principles of Federalism. In short, those principles are as follows: the central federal government shall exercise power over some issues, while the state governments exercise power over others; the powers of the federal government shall be divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches; and the states shall exercise checks and balances of the federal government. All of these provisions were designed to keep the democracy and individual freedoms of the United States in tact. As we move forward through history, however, these ideals, bit by bit, become jeopardized in favor of an "it takes a village" mentality.
The federal legislature has enacted laws and implemented countless programs intended to improve our quality of life, ensure equality among all Americans, and provide for the less fortunate. While well intentioned, our representatives have stumbled down the wrong path. The government you'll find in place today is one far more overreaching and expansive than our forefathers could ever have imagined. The privilege of checks and balances that states once exercised over the federal government has given way to federal mandates and legislative bullying. What's more, what was once decided by the ultimate democracy, the free market, is now subject to government regulation and the influence of powerful special interest groups. America's government has become too big and cumbersome to effectively deal with the social and economic problems we face today. And what has been the root cause of those problems? America's big and cumbersome government. Federal legislators have become overly concerned with enacting law after law in lame attempts to solve these problems when, in fact, the best resolution is to hand jurisdiction over these matters to the lowest possible levels, whether that be city councils or individual participants in the free market (think "what's good for some is not necessarily good for all"). When the power to fix these problems is spread across several localized governments and American consumers, the result will be solutions better tailored to the individual citizens of that region and, ultimately, to the country as a whole. Specifically, Medicare and Social Security are two programs that could be improved exponentially through a decreased governmental role.
In 2007 Medicare spending accounted for over 14% of the federal budget, or, $394,500,000,000 (yes, you read that correctly). Medicare Part D (the prescription drug plan) is one aspect of this comprehensive program in need of reform. While Part D has no doubt been a tremendous help to low-income seniors in need of prescription drugs, it has also been a huge burden on the American taxpayer. At the risk of being accused of over simplifying the problem, I'll continue. Eliminating the federal government from this particular market would mean eliminating an enormous amount of deep-pocketed demand for prescription drugs. The actual amount of demand would remain the same, but as the low-income beneficiaries (read: consumers) must now buy their drugs directly, drug companies would find themselves with a much bigger incentive to lower prices in order to remain competitive in a free market environment; and let's not forget that American consumers can do something that the government can't--negotiate for lower drug prices. Not by bartering with the pharmacist, mind you, but through price-competition. The volume of prescription drugs that major manufacturers are able to sell at current prices would be unsustainable were the government to suddenly stop subsidizing the cost to beneficiaries. A large percentage of that market would find themselves unable to afford the drugs at such lofty prices without assistance. While this is a certainly undesirable short-term effect of a reduced government presence, the long term effect would be a far more attractive situation in which low-income seniors receive prescription drugs at low prices sparing the expense of the taxpayer. I'll submit that this would by no means be a quick process, but it would in time be effective nonetheless. Handing jurisdiction over this matter to the free market is the perfect solution to a growing problem that is creating a wide chasm between taxpayers and beneficiaries. American consumers, collectively, are more than capable of forging a resolution that would satisfy both the individual in need of affordable prescription drugs and the American taxpayer forking over a generous portion of his or her hard earned income.
The Social Security conundrum we face is another that is perfectly suited to be sorted out in the free market. As we continue to adopt and implement ambitious federal programs, the federal budget continues to be sucked dry, and that includes money intended to provide Social Security benefits to the millions of Americans that have been paying into the program for their entire adult lives. As it stands today, the Social Security Trust Fund (from which benefits are paid) is forecast to be depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration). Privatization has been and is the key to successfully bailing us out of the mess that this government controlled "social insurance" program has gotten us into. We must act quickly, though, and provide young Americans entering the workforce with the opportunity to take control of their finances and contribute to private accounts. The rest of us must also be provided with the opportunity to opt out of the Social Security program in favor of private accounts. Had our contributions been deposited into private accounts from the beginning, the risk of depletion is a risk that neither the federal government nor we would be faced with. And not only that, with a privatized system, we, as individuals, would be able to exercise control over how our money is invested. After all, individual responsibility is exactly what this country is lacking as the "it takes a village" mentality spreads.
As power continues to be plucked out of the hands of individual Americans and local and state governments by our federal "representatives," so spreads a culture of democratic totalitarianism in which representatives elected by citizens to protect their interests enact laws and implement federal programs that, more often than not, stretch beyond the reach our forefathers intended the American government to have and right into the pocket of the American taxpayer. A return to the federalist ideals of the founding fathers would be a return to a democracy of, for, and by the people it was designed to support. The answers to our problems will not be found in federal welfare programs and government mandated restrictions on the greatest free market in the world; they will be found through preservation of our individual freedoms and by limiting the size and scope of our federal government.
