By Daniel Downs
It would be ease to say there are only two types of persons, two types of families, and two types of career paths. Anyone who would dare make those claims would be labeled naïve or plain dumb. In our complex society, a view such as there are some people who do well in life and those who do not, or, some people grow up in homes in which a can-do mentality infected every cell of their being as well as their future, while there are others whose surroundings are permeated by every form of can’t. Their life and happiness either thrive or shrivel with achievement, lack of success, or possibly over-achievement. And, then, there are those whose life work is realized and those who are always seeking to make it to the end of the next pay check. That is not to say ever person who achieves the American dream or realizes their life mission becomes rich or doesn’t have financial difficulties. A low to moderate income is not as big a deal to him or her as to the one who is lost in the black hole of modern culture alienated from his or her best self, a hopeful future, life enhancing relationships–or simply life purpose. However, living well is of paramount importance.
Living well could simply be defined as being born into a good family, growing up well, learning well, pursuing and achieving one’s life work, marrying a good partner, raising kids after one’s own image and likeness, not divorcing, maintaining good friendships, contributing to the good of others and society, living in right relationship with author of life, having hope for an eternal life with God, and having more good memories than painful ones at the end of life.
Of course, all of the above is too simplistic a definition of life for modern people living in such a complex society of great cultural diversity and political sophistication. Let’s face it; today even human nature is no longer something definable. At least that is what modern academies and other social institution now teach.1
What about jobs? What does a definition of life have to do with jobs? Let’s try to define jobs. Jobs enable people to pay bills. Jobs are what people must do in order to maintain sanitary, healthy and safe environments. The instruments used to maintain a complex society maintained are jobs. Jobs are statistical outcomes generated by the science of political economy. Jobs feed the machine of government and corporation, but machine continues to exist on a diet meaningless people. As such, jobs are dime-a-dozen sink-holes. They are the abode of the masses. Jobs may be necessary activities but they offer an exciting swirl in the black hole of modern culture’s progressive void. For some, jobs are necessary evils. Nevertheless, jobs are symbols of life led by the anti-Christ, merely a number of a man (or a woman).
Remember, your social security number. Few, if any, can buy or sell without it. Citizens of most nations also are required to have a similar national id number.
What the world needs now is not a devilish political economy that maximizes power, wealth, security, or other special interests of an unmoral and relatively few persons. What we all need is simply a society and culture that maximizes life—a life lived well. Such a simplistic society would probably look like human nature at its best.
Postscript
May I suggest a starting point to begin the work of reconstructing for such a society? The founding fathers of our nation and most societies started with God. A real relationship with the non institutionalized and black-boxed God and His Christ might be the best way to start the process of recreating personal life, family, government, and culture.
Notes:
1 Massimo Pigliucci, “Is There Such A Thing As Human Nature?” Science 2.0, November 18, 2008, accessed July 21, 2012, http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/there_such_thing_human_nature.
If You Build It, They Paid for It
By Cameron Smith
President Obama recently noted that “[i]f you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” But the President’s argument did not stop with the assertion that economic success fundamentally requires paying customers. Instead, the President essentially argued that the successful person somehow “owes” the government for the fact that he or she makes a good living.
For most businesses in America, making money is a fairly simple concept even if it is challenging to execute. In short, the business makes a product or provides a service that customers value more than the money in their pockets. As a result, the business profits and the customer receives something he or she values. But where is the government in that exchange?
The President argues that the business became successful in large part because of transportation infrastructure and an Internet created by the federal government. But this fundamentally begs the question of where the money for those projects came from.
Few will deny the utility of quality transportation infrastructure or the reach of the Internet, but the government did not generate the wealth that enabled those projects. While the Field of Dreams sentiment “if you build it, they will come” makes for great theater, it falls flat when applied to government action. A government’s resources simply do not exist outside the economy it taxes.
Unfortunately, the current revenue base of almost $2.5 trillion is not nearly enough grist for the Obama Administration’s political mill. In fact, the President’s most recent “budget” calls for an additional $1.3 trillion in debt. Stating that the wealthy need to pay a “little more” in order to trim federal deficits is such a serious understatement that it borders on falsehood.
In 2009, the last year for complete federal tax data, tax returns with an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 incurred a total tax liability of almost $450 billion. Assuming that the President could increase the tax liability for these “wealthy” individuals by ten percent, the net gain to the federal government would be less than $50 billion, barely a drop in the bucket against what Washington is spending. In truth, President Obama would need to tax those with returns in excess of $200,000 at almost 50 percent of their total taxable income to trim even 25 percent of President Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009.
It is little more than political theater to argue that there are some services and legitimate functions of government that most Americans have little trouble lending their consent or their tax dollars. The hard truth is that a government comprising almost 25 percent of America’s GDP needs major reforms … not just a little more cash.
Unfortunately, the President’s mantra reflects the powerful siren call of the collectivist rather than support of the time-tested free marketplace. The warm notion that “we are all in this together” conveniently leaves off the rest of the sentiment …”as long as you agree with me.” To paraphrase Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, the only thing worse than submitting to the uncertain outcomes and inequalities of a free market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and arbitrary power of other men. Americans can and must do better than simply give more control and send more money to Washington in an effort to solve the challenges facing the nation.
Cameron Smith is Policy Director and General Counsel for the Alabama Policy Institute, an independent, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.
Leave a comment
Posted in business, commentary, politics, taxes