What's Really at Stake

Recently George Steinbrenner passed away, and because this year (and this year only) there is no death tax, the Yankee’s owner, shipping magnate and philanthropist was able to bequeath the entirety of considerable fortune to his heirs … as he saw fit. That thought delights me. For as the legendary economist Milton Friedman once wondered, why is it better for a wealthy man to spend lavishly on himself, indulging in every whim, than leave too much money to his children?

I don’t have any children, but I have many friends who are wonderful, loving parents, and certainly I was once a child myself, so I’m still well acquainted with the concept of mothers and fathers “doing” for their offspring. In fact, as far as my circle of friends and family is concerned, anything less than total commitment to their children’s welfare is completely unfathomable. And surely, among life’s pleasures for these people, is giving a gift to a child that will utterly delight the young one.

Now imagine if such a special moment were interrupted by a brutish third party who steps in and announces, “That gift is much too nice. I’m going to insist on something of lesser value for your child.” Unfortunately in this scenario, the entity is so powerful that you have no choice but to surrender a portion of your little one’s joy.

Here then is the question: If it would disturb you to be stopped from giving your child as fancy a toy as you would like, how much worse would it be if this same interloper stopped you from aiding your child with a better education, better health care or — worse still— the life skills and moral character to flourish on their own.

Ultimately, that is the effect of wealth redistribution as favored by the current regime in Washington. And don’t doubt for a moment that Barack Obama and his associates truly want to keep middle-class parents from providing for their children at the best of their ability. Consider leftist opposition to anything other than government/union-run schools, their grab to limit and ration medical care, and an unrelenting assault on the values that made the nation great—namely individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.

The magnificent thing about capitalistic, free-market economies and the liberty to make choices is that corresponding societies afford the greatest opportunity for upward mobility (or perhaps more to the point, a much enhanced ability to live a life based on one’s own priorities). For now, the vast majority of Americans (not just the super rich) have access to products, services and entertainments that their grandparents could not have imagined. This includes “doing” for your children, which is another legacy of "free minds and free markets."

But shouldn't we be willing to do with a little less, even for our children, if it means meeting the needs of the poorest among us? I would agree, if I believed that was the goal of left-wing politicians, but it isn’t. Instead, they want power ... and assuming the mantle of charity is merely a means to their ends. Some may want power for personal aggrandizement and some may want to “do good” but make no mistake, they want to rule. To achieve their goal, they seek to corner the market on much of the things that middle class people so readily have at hand. Once you understand this, you’ll understand why Barack Obama is so hostile to economic liberty and free enterprise.

This is the patronage system—Tammany Hall or the “Chicago Way.” If you want good healthcare, to send your children to the best schools, a home in a nice neighborhood … too bad! Your ability to get these things through your own efforts will be put out of your reach, regardless of how hard you’re willing to work or the talent you possess, or yes … even raw luck. (And is luck so bad? Don’t we all, on occasion, fantasize about being lucky?) Instead, you’ll need to show obeisance to the proper authorities, grease a few palms … maybe join the SEIU (the Party).

It is the hope of the statists to make us all dependent on the government for everything. And unless you want to be like the most pathetic of Hurricane Katrina’s victims, (waiting to be rescued because they never learned self-reliance) you will need to learn to adoringly chant something like “Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm! Barack Hussein Obama!”

And we will, because good parents will do anything for their children. Even wear the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama’s War on Responsible Americans

If you’re someone who works hard to provide well for yourself and your family, tries to instill good values in your children, endeavors to live an honorable life … and hopes to occasionally reap some rewards from all your hard work, I have bad news: You aren’t among Barack Obama’s constituent groups.

And if you know anything about Chicago-style, patronage politics, you know that you’re either with the Machine or you’re food for it.

Seriously, can anyone name a single policy endorsed by the current administration that makes it easier to do any of the things mentioned in that opening paragraph?

Provide for your family? Unemployment hovers around 10% largely because Obama’s profligate spending, eagerness to raise taxes and aggressive moves to regulate every aspect of the economy have so spooked businesses that they are afraid to invest or hire.

Try to instill good values in children? Attempting to bribe one politician with various favors to not run against another one; judicial appointments and a Department of Justice that judges people not by their character but by the color of their skin; government bail outs for bad behavior (personal and institutional) … those are some of examples that Obama is setting for America’s youth.

Endeavors to live an honorable life? Look at the cast of miscreants with whom Barack Obama is associated: Low-life felon Tony Reznik, domestic terrorist William Ayers, “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, the gang from ACORN, SEIU goon squads … if honor was money, they couldn’t come up with a nickel between the lot of 'em! Birds of a feather, I always say.

Hope to occasionally reap some rewards from hard work? Forget about it! The Teleprompter in Chief has plans for your money and it doesn’t include you! Some of your cash is earmarked for people who lead irresponsible lives with no interest in looking out for themselves or their children. (But they vote!) Then he also wants to pay off unions for their support and muscle (the Brown Shirt Brigades of the Obama-Nation). And of course the ruling class itself desires more and more perks and power! Buying votes and controlling everything is expensive. That’s not going to leave a lot of money left over for the people who earned it. Sorry.

Even big banks and corporations are more cherished by Barack Obama and his ilk than the average middle class family. Forget what you've always heard about socialist being for the "little guy." They see no real upside to being for the middle class or small business owners. Not when "too big to fail" policies enable Obama's thug-ocracy to extort more and more concessions against freedom that feed the downward spiral toward mass servitude.

Yeah, face it. If you’re a decent, hardworking American citizen, you fall well below illegal aliens in Barack Obama’s pecking order. And in fact, just because you have the temerity to want to take care of yourself and your family, make your own decisions and build your own future, you dare reject the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama wants to destroy your ability to make a better life for yourself than would be possible by solely relying on government. To that end, his policies are all about lowering your expectations and limiting your options. And as long as you cling to those things (as you might cling to your faith or other freedoms) you are an enemy of the Anointed One.

Independence Day Thoughts

If engaged in a political debate, how I assess my "opponent" might well include his or her view of citizen “rights.” And frankly, I have a hard time taking too seriously anyone who declares we have a "right" to things like healthcare, or housing, or even food.

Now I’m not saying that as a society — or better yet, as individuals —we shouldn’t be concerned that our fellow human beings have the basic (or even some of the not-so-basic) necessities of life. But one person’s moral imperative to share is another person’s waste of effort (or money). And the simple and unassailable fact is that no one has a right to anything that another person has to provide.

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” or why we speak of the “Natural Rights of Man.” We make our way in this world with life (a heartbeat), liberty (an ability to choose between options) and a desire for happiness (as we individually define it). You don’t have to ask anyone else for these things. Others (usually the government) can take them away from us — liberals are very keen on curbing that “pursuit of happiness” thing — but absent outside interference, an Inalienable Right is the normal state of affairs from the moment of our birth.

Or think of it this way: If you lived on an unchartered island all by yourself, you would most assuredly have your Inalienable Rights. By contrast, anything else you want on that island, you’re going to have to acquire all by your little lonesome.

But I must admit that there is also a question as to why any rights at all should be respected. After all, why should the government (whether a monarch or the people collectively) be constrained from preventing us from exercising our Natural Rights. What if they have a good reason? I can only (and perhaps lamely) say it is my preference to only render unto Caesar what came from Caesar, and consult with the Provider as to what I do with everything else. But accept that rationale or not, we are left with either very few rights or none at all. And “none at all,” definitely rules out a such occasionally suggested “rights” as paid vacations or bilingual education.

Putting aside the sillier claims, I am especially pleased that our Constitution didn’t stop with protecting the few inalienable rights Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land says that government can’t deprive us of property without compensation, it isn’t allowed to keep us from worshiping as we see fit, or forbid us from hanging out with people of our own choosing … to name a few additional protections from tyranny. Yet notice, once again, that those Constitutional Rights are not what someone must give us, but rather are existing abilities and freedoms that shall not be taken from us.

Some people are bothered by the limits on what government may rip away — leading them to say that our governing document is full of “negative liberties.”Of course, what those people see as a negative (government shall not, or Congress shall make no law … etc.), I see as a positive (yes, I may!).

We can debate about what is fair or not fair, what will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, or what Jesus would do. But as for what constitutes a Right — unless you were born with it — you shouldn’t expect anyone to give it you. And if it is your birthright (perhaps your only birthright), you might want to be careful not to let anyone take it away without a fight.

Happy 4th of July!