Posted by
A Young Conservative on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:21:24 PM
Hello,
I am new to blogging but have been very active in political debates and discussion for most of my life. This is one of the longest things I've written, and I have been reluctant to post it anywhere (especially a blog). However, I have finally decided that I am going to start posting my essays in a public forum. I love conservatism and I love writing, I guess it was only a matter of time until I started this.
If you have any thoughts, critiques or just feel and urge to tear me to pieces, be my guest.
Sincerely,
A Young Conservative
An Apology on Behalf of Young America
By A Young Conservative
On November 4th
2008, Senator Barrack Hussein Obama was elected president of the United States
of America; the “Land of the Free”.
How did such an unknown, inexperienced young senator from
Illinois become the most powerful man in the world? The answer is simple: Blind
faith and a zealous following of the ignorant people of America. Just like in
any other democratic election, the majority ruled. This wide range of people
consists of many different people groups, but most importantly: Young America.
With such a bold accusation, a number of people are probably
going to get angry, and disagree. That’s all right! That is their right as
Americans.
Obama has transcended the role of a politician running for the
White House. He has embodied himself as the essence of “change”, exchanging his
arms for “hope” and his legs for “new beginnings”. Because of this, Obama has
catered to the most numerous of the class system in America: the lower and
middle classes. Socialism, or even social policy, has been proven not to work!
But these voters don’t know this, or just don’t care about it; all they know is
that their “change” is coming. Of course, using an argument like that can also
spark questions: “What about Warren Buffet!” or, “what about all of the rich
people in this country? Why would they support him as well?” These questions
are valid, and cannot be addressed in a simple blanket answer; but there are a
number of more obvious answers.
Guilt: In the way the free market
works, there are two groups of people who become rich and successful. The first
is a group of people who make money easily, and without hard work. This can
include people that are born into wealth, or “make it big” through becoming
famous, either through music or athletics. Then there are people who work hard
throughout their lives, making an honest living; sacrificing things dear to
them, and making wise financial decisions. Which group would be more willing to
part with their money, do you think? I would say the first one. The group of
people who start making money like its nothing, and don’t know how hard the
other group works for theirs. These people somehow rise to the top, not always
by their own merits, but rather by either mere coincidence, or moral depravity.
These people would be most willing to give to the less fortunate. Because,
let’s face it; a couple thousand dollars extra a month won’t seem like anything
to them, not compared to the populist appeal they will get, and how good they
will look to the general public! Who doesn’t love a philanthropist? Especially
one who doesn’t only give away his
money, but also his neighbor’s money! More pie please!
Unfortunately, this
type of monetary redistribution is exactly what will kill us. It is called
socialism, and is creeping into our country like an economic coup. The pieces
are being set, and it’s only a matter of time until the last defense we have is
broken: the executive branch of our country. Although guilt may not sound like
a strong argument at first, the idea can grow on you once you think of all of
Obama’s main supporters.
Lack of understanding (In economics,
particularly): Most people do not fully understand the Free Market system (Or
else Dr. Paul or someone of the sorts would be the current president-elect).
Because of this, they love to soak in all the stupid, made up facts and
opinions, or twisted, misconstrued information that are thrown at them from
various angles (usually from other people like them, or the news) and repeat
them. They do this without forming cohesive opinions, and without fully
understanding the consequences of their ignorance. They “drink the kool-aid”.
Obama preaches “liberal economics” (aka socialism).
In this type of system, money will be taken from those who Obama deems “rich”,
and gives to those who Obama deems “not rich”. Well, that doesn’t seem too bad,
does it? The reality is that those same people who get taxed more are the very
ones who make jobs for the poorer ones. Do you see a problem? This has been tried
in various countries, and has either failed miserably, or degraded the work
ethic of those who participate (just look at other socialized countries; most
explicably, France).
People like Obama will use obvious contrasts, like our
current economic situation, to prove that our current form of capitalism
doesn’t work, thereby warranting a new change (Obama’s favorite word).
People who believe this don’t understand what true capitalism is. “Greedy
people in banks” did not create our current economic situation, and neither did
“fat cats on wall street”. No, the people who truly created our recession are
the same people who are making the accusations! In order to appease a majority
(or just the liberals who pretend they represent the majority, it’s hard to
tell which), the federal government decided to slash interest rates, preaching
“all people should be able to own a home”. Because of this, loans (which would
normally not be granted) starting flowing through the country. “No credit, no
problem!” is now a commonly heard phrase, made to catch our attention, and
sympathize with us. “Oh, I can’t afford a car… but its okay! I’ll just take it
on credit!” This new, “I should be able to get whatever I want” kind of mindset
exhibits the true “fat cats”… us.
So why blame the banks? Well, why not! That’s the type of
thing we normally do, blame each other for something we don’t fully understand;
it’s actually childish, isn’t it? Banks, who knew we probably wouldn’t be able
to pay the loans back, started to package our mortgages; and they had every
right to. Unfortunately, because of the recent flux of housing costs (also a
federally constructed problem) and continual inter-bank reselling of these
packages, we will see little to no return of their original costs. It is not
the banks’ fault (although their extensive inter-bank re-sales didn’t help), it
is our fault. We are the ones who selfishly decided to buy things we couldn’t
afford; we are the true greedy ones.
So how is the government reacting?
Here comes daddy! Big government to the rescue! After the
“bailout” bill passed through congress, people started giving mixed reviews. Is
this a good thing? Could this help undue the precious acts of stupidity? Or is
it just another step towards socialism? Congress decided to give a “get out of
bankruptcy free” card to all major banks. The feds decided to spend $750b of OUR money to help keep these banks
above water, rewarding their failure with a second chance. That is not how
capitalism works! We are in essence loaning to a group of people who couldn’t
even loan correctly themselves. So who can blame the banks? With an all
rewards, but no risk policy like this one, who wouldn’t do the same?
What most people forget is that this government was not put in place to babysit us our
entire lives. The truth is some people just aren’t supposed to own a home! That
is what renting is for! The same goes with cars, and anything unnecessary for
our existence; how many new, or nearly new cars do you see driving on the roads
every day? Why does someone really need a new vehicle? Is it because the older
one went out of style? We consistently use our credit to buy things we normally
cannot afford. The least we can do is try to be knowledgeable! The ways, and
places we invest our money is extremely important, if not life-altering.
As Americans, we are so used to getting what we want, that
it has corrupted our interpretation of the role of the federal government. The
government was put into place to protect
people, by upholding the individual rights of the person, not the “greater good”! We have butchered our
interpretation of the term “general welfare”. That doesn’t include
redistribution of money! That populist, socialist way of thinking has been
opposed all throughout American History!
When Davey Crockett was a congressman, he came across a very
charitable bill, a bill that most believed would pass easily. The bill was
created in order help pay for the widow of deceased naval officer.7 Surprisingly,
instead of helping pass the bill, Crockett gave a very lengthy speech, arguing
the constitutional authority of Congress to give away its money for anything
other than “public debt”. Crockett further elaborated on the nature of the
bill, claiming “If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for
we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the
same amount.”
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of
our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no
right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money
-
Davey Crockett (TNN – Anti-Jacksonian)
Davey Crockett is a man who many would forget served in our
government. Although his act of stopping the bill may look like an easy way of
saving some money (at the expense of an old lady, and one of respectable
character, since she was the wife of a naval officer), it was the principle of
the bill he stopped. Crockett understood that the government has no right to do
what it wants with the public treasury, even in acts of apparently justified
charity.
So is the form of government we have doing this? Isn’t this
one of the principles Congressman Davey Crockett tried to stop? We have lowered
the bar on our principles; if a congressman was asked to do this with his
own money; do you think he would have been as quick to answer?
A Misconstrued Reality
Obama ran his platform
on the needs of the middle class. But what exactly is the middle class? Senator
Obama has said that the middle class is made up of people who make less than
$250,000 annually. These people are the ones who usually provide the backbone
of large companies, or work with small businesses. So if Obama plans socialist
policies, believes that he will increase the standards of living for the middle
class, and is also about to take an office whose sole purpose is to “serve the
American people”, isn’t that a contradiction? Catering to a single group of
Americans by taking from another group is, according to Obama, the “right thing
to do”. But that isn’t serving all Americans!
The “For the greater good” argument is usually a response to
a statement such as the one I have just mentioned. I would agree if socialist
reforms worked, but they don’t! In the 1950’s, when taxes were some of the
lowest in the world, (federal income tax for was 2% of the family budget1),
median income American families enjoyed the highest standards of living in the
world! Later, in the 1990’s (after social security and other social policies
started to come full swing), taxes jumped to 50% for the same kind of family1;
forcing the breadwinner to work twenty five times more for the same kind of
money. How is climbing the tax going to help? Obama claims that by taking
enough money from the upper class, he can redistribute it in such a way that
will be better for the general populace.
The “upper class” Obama talks about consists of bankers,
doctors, lawyers, business owners, corporate CEOs, CFOs, bond traders… the list
goes on! Because these people make so much money, they are seen as a different
part of America to Senator Obama, a special “milk-able” sector of the U.S. who can
legally be stolen from. Although this may seem unfortunate for the upper class,
at least it’s making life better for the majority of the United States, right?
Currently, the top 20% of Americans pay for 80% of its
taxes, with somewhere near 40% barely paying anything.8 Is that fair? Some would
think so. If this gets higher, why should any of this “cultural elite” stay in
this country? Especially with new, booming economies in places like Ireland and
South Korea? If these wealthy, business-owing individuals move, why would they
want to employ expensive, union-participating Americans, especially when they
can get fairer wages in other countries? They won’t.
True Capitalism takes hold of one of the most prominent
characteristics of humankind: competition. In a national or even global market,
competition is the key factor to keep prices low, products well made, loyal
service, and research quick and efficient. In this type of non-intervened market,
anything the consumer wants will be brought to him.
The natural price, or the price of free competition
... is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for
any considerable time together...[It] is the lowest which the sellers can
commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.
-
The Wealth of
Nations, Book I, Chapter VII
By manipulating the market, the government sets a
domino-style system info effect, sending a ripple through the very fabrics of
our free-market economy. Companies and businesses need to find ways to deal
with new costs. When this happens, they have four choices:
A. Absorb
the new costs, not passing it on, and taking a fall of profit.
B. Pass
the new costs onto the consumer, raising price of profit.
C. Downsize
D. Move
to somewhere cheaper; somewhere the news taxes do not apply.
How are any of those choices good? All affect the consumer,
in one way or another. Why would anyone, nonetheless an educated senator, want
to continue bringing us further and further from the greatest years in our
nation’s history? We should be lowering
taxes on businesses, in order to encourage growth! Not taxing them just because
they’re there… Not as an easy way to get money! These businesses define
America! It shouldn’t be the other way around.
How to Rake in the Dough,
Reagan Style
"Only by reducing the growth of government can we increase the growth of
the economy."
-
Ronald Reagan
President
Reagan was in strong opposition of government regulation in the free market.
His economic policies had four main objectives:
Reduce the growth of government spending
2)
Reduce the marginal tax rates on income
3)
Reduce regulation
4)
Reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money
supply
In a free market, investors are never guaranteed happy
returns. When someone decides to risk their own money, it is because they feel
the rewards outweigh those risks. If you shrink the the rewards of investing, the risks look that much bigger. 6
If you tax companies, they will pass that monetary loss onto
the consumer (Just as I have previously discussed). How is that helpful at all?
Obama plans to destroy the $102k social security cap, raise taxes on those who
make more than $250k, and is now trying to raise a new "Global aid" program
that will cost more than $1 trillion annually. (Yes, that’s right. Not only
does “the greater good” include mandatory charity to other Americans, but now
also includes foreign, developing nations. How much of that will actually go to
the people, or ever be returned to us, you think?) How is Obama going to pay
for all of this? Once again, it comes back to taxing the rich; the same people
that work, and run, those companies.
“At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being
taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than
more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue:
high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.”
-
Jack Kemp (R-NY)
So how did Reagan deal with this? Why was his “Reaganomic”
system so successful? First, let’s look at the facts. Under Reagan’s
administration, economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years
versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton
years. Real median family income grew by 4,000 during the Reagan period after
experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost
$1,500 in the post-Reagan years.2
Reagan dropped the top-tiered personal income tax rate from
70% to 28%. “The economic effects of this Reagan tax cuts were
dramatic. When Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was being choked by high
inflation and was in the middle of a double-dip recession (1980 and 1982). The
tax cuts helped pull the economy out of the doldrums and ushered in the longest
period of peacetime economic growth in America's history. During the seven-year
Reagan boom, economic growth averaged almost 4 percent.”3
What time has taught is
relatively simple. Government taxation has a direct affect on corporate revenue. Simplistically speaking, the
lower the taxes, the more revenue will be gained as a percentage of GDP. So,
“lower taxes, more money”.
"Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift,
hide and underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work,
produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job
creation."
-
Kurt Hauser
Not surprisingly, this almost perfect philosophy of taxation is not a
new thing…
“High taxes, sometimes by diminishing the consumption of the taxed
commodities, and sometimes by encouraging smuggling, frequently afford a
smaller revenue to government than what might be drawn from more moderate
taxes.”
-
Adam Smith
David Ranson, of the Wall Street
Journal, elaborates on this graph, explaining in his own words the acclaimed
tax method devised as “Hauser’s Law”:
“Will increasing tax rates
on the rich increase revenues..? Mr. Hauser uncovered the means to answer
these questions definitively. On this page in 1993, he stated that “No matter what the tax
rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5%
of GDP.” …
The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms
Hauser’s Law. The federal tax “yield” (revenues divided by GDP) has remained
close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to the
present 35%.
The data shows that the tax yield has been independent of
marginal tax rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax
revenue, we need to increase GDP.
What happens if we instead
raise tax rates? Economists all over the place accept that a tax rate hike will
reduce GDP, in which case Hauser’s Law says it will also lower tax revenue.
That’s a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies
in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be
unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates
on the rich – if they knew about it…”5
So what does all of this mean?
Well, it proves that Reagan’s tax cuts were successful, (despite what many
critics may bring up about the national deficit. By the end of the Reagan years, the economy
had grown almost one third larger than it was when Reagan took office. Reagan’s
democratic congress spent that money as fast as they got it.) Between
1978 and 1981 capital gains taxes were cut from 35% percent to 20% percent. But
is that even a good thing? Does it “encourage growth”? Well, revenues soared by
90 percent in real terms between 1978 and 1985. So, once Congress lifted the
rate to 28% in 1986, capital gains revenues declined by 20 percent by 1990. I
would say the numbers speak for themselves.4
Does this make Obama’s plan worse automatically, just
because it’s different than Reagan’s? Why no, it doesn’t. It just makes it a
new, progressive “change” from the type of system that worked best for America.
It is a theoretical system that slaps capitalism in the face, and is lifted up
so high with such desperate hope, that the entire logical part of the scheme
behind it doesn’t even matter anymore, nonetheless discussed in very public
forums.
Obama’s policy is an anti-American form of economics, one
that has been tried repeatedly and failed. Why would he try to bring it back
again? Well, because he’s Barack Obama of course! Why would anything not work
when he’s behind it? He’s our savior, for goodness sake! Anything he does is
automatically American; even the founding fathers support it! (I am being
sarcastic, of course).
“To take from one, because it is thought
his own industry and that of his fathers has
acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill,
is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to
everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
“A wise and frugal
government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them
otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and
shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum
of good government.”
-
Thomas Jefferson
“I am for doing good
to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of
doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or
driving them out of it.”
-
Benjamin
Franklin
“I cannot undertake to
lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to
Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents.”
-
James Madison
One can either take their advice or not; it’s not like they
were intelligent people anyway, right?
Unfortunately, Obama’s most popular following doesn’t
respect the founding fathers opinions. They blindly follow their leader like a
pop star, singing his praises in order to win their friend’s approval, or just
to be “different”. Most of the time, this following only knows as much as they
are told, and follow it madly. They are Obama’s most loyal following, and his
best volunteers. The “Hitler Youth” of Obama’s campaign: Young America.
Where Our Vindication Lies
This 2008 election
marked the largest participation of young voters in history, in both the
Democratic and Republic parties. My generation has grown up with television as
one of our main hobbies, taking up a majority of our time. Of course, with most
in Hollywood being liberal, some of the far left secular garbage has filtered
through. With popular rap artists, actresses and actors, musicians and general
famous people supporting “change”, it wasn’t hard to foresee an Obama victory.
I have countless friends, all swearing by Obama’s name, trying to replace their
lack of an intelligent, political opinion by swapping it with an ignorant,
populist one. Sometimes it feels like the only reason they support Obama is so
that they can identify their small minded emotions with a new change; that
somehow having a new, more “hip” president will bring meaning to their rather
shallow existences.
It feels like they are supporting Obama only to say “yeah, I
voted for Obama, I ‘Barocked’ the vote!” They act like they know something no
one else does, like they’re “in the know”. That is probably the most
frustrating part of it for me. When I know
the truth, but the people I talk to think
they know the truth, and act upon that hypothetical knowledge.
So how many people have been inspired by such faith from the
younger generations of America? I would be up all night if I was to list all of
Obama’s supporters who could potentially make money on his popularized
campaign.
I point out the obvious, stereotypical zeal and tenacity
that Obama’s supporters display for one reason: it’s true. Now that my
generation has chosen something, they will stick to it for as long as they can.
I imagine my fellow “Mellenialists” feel powerful now, with their newly
discovered power of persuasion.
Although we were far from crucial to the election, we, the
young voters, played a definite part. If not in the form of an actual physical,
direct vote, definitely by “drowning out” the wiser, more intellectually based
people that did.
As you can see, most young people identify as
democrats, I wonder why that is? Personally, I feel that we are entering a
cultural shift. Many of my friends, neighbors; everyone my age has started to
become more liberal. A new “the government should do this for me” mindset is
taking over. Increase laziness is a usual sign of this, and I believe that is
easily confirmed with the social programs on the Democratic agenda.
Although I try to find the sources everyday, only the
symptoms are prevalent. Is it the colleges, universities, the places where students
go to learn the “truth”? Or are we to blame ourselves for this problem…
a self-created delusion; a paradigm shift in the way we react to the world.
Could this possibly be my generation’s hostile, confused response to the “world
culture”? Every day, powerful people in powerful positions are making us more
acceptable to other nations; whether it is tolerance of new (and sometimes
bizarre) religions, or socializing our medical and economic systems just
because “everyone else is doing it”... Do we understand the consequences?
Strangely enough however, every time I talk to an
Obama-leaning friend of mine, and once they actually fully understand what it is I am saying, they usually change their mind.
So I guess I can’t doubt the actual mental capacity of those who vote for this
man, only their comprehension and reasoning skills. The only thing that keeps
these zealot’s holds onto such a well-spoken man is their ignorance.
But what can I, as a sixteen-year-old sophomore in high
school, do to help prevent this shift? There is almost nothing… My generation,
in mass, has already decided what will happen:
We have decided to reject the free market system that has
proved itself over and over again. We have decided to reject saving innocent
people in Iraq. We have decided to reject the Judeo-Christian values that have
guided our country. We have decided to reject the idea that an unborn child is
an actual person. We have decided to reject the idea that everyone should work
hard for their money. And worst of all, we have rejected conservatism in and of
itself, and along with it, the Republican Party.
So I would like to apologize to the Newt Gingrichs, Ron
Pauls, James Madisons, Ronald Reagans, Thomas Jeffersons and Alexander
Hamiltons of our country. I feel as though it is my fault, like I didn’t do
enough. But what is there for me to do? I have done all I can to undo the
spread of ignorance; to cure the plague that has been channeled through the
youth in our nation. I wonder how many adult, voting-age people have changed
their minds because of the consistent, confident words of “reason” regurgitated
by their younger counterparts. I wonder how many people have been drawn to vote
for Obama by their friends, and follow through with it because they think that
their voices are heard in defiance; thinking they are “challenging the status
quo”. I wonder how many people have been touched because of the vast number of
young people volunteering for Obama’s campaign team… It blows my mind.
So please forgive me, and my friends for not doing enough.
Please forgive us, the Young Conservatives, for not being outspoken and clever
enough to spread the seeds of conservatism to all who would, or wouldn’t listen. We are the ones who
are supposed to take your places, and I feel like we have failed you. I would
hate to think what our nation will look like in twenty, thirty years from now,
when we no longer have the intelligent, well spoken conservative leaders we
have presently. The way some of my friends mock conservative policies, letting
them glance off their thoughts without a second taken to consider their value…
It makes me sad to see how far we have fallen.
I feel the only way we can redeem ourselves is if a
stronger, more passionate generation of leaders comes out from this trauma, and
if he is one of ours, one of my generation. If that day comes, I
will once again feel debtless; free from a heavy burden of guilt I now carry on
my conscious.
But in the meantime, please forgive us, the Young Americans.
Please forgive us for allowing a new advent of liberalism to take place.
Forgive us for letting the very lifeblood of conservatism slip through our
fingers.
Sources:
(1)
http://www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
(2)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120
(3)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086.cfm
(4)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
(5)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
(6)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
(7)
http://www.theadvocates.org/library/christian-crockett.html
(8) http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html