The View From 1776

Puritan Theocracy vs Judicial Tyranny

Puritans believed in the democracy of New England town meetings.  Liberals believe that unelected judges have an unlimited prerogative to create law, even when it is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of citizens.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/02 at 03:50 PM
  1. Since this comes from later in Jefferson's life it is probably more in tune with his collective education and thoughts about the founding of the nation.
    Quote:
    ...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)
    ===================================

    We have "check" on the Court but with a split congress it is little more than words on a document. An imporatant document, the Constitution, but, it holds little value if not upheld by the people nor Congress.

    One could say that too, is the "will of the people." Can't the "people" choose to ignore just as much as they can choose to change? Have the American people come to believe the Constitution is no longer relavent and rather than change it, just ignore it.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  04:41 PM
  2. The State Court can be just as damaging as the Federal if allowed.

    However, I seldom find very much outrage in some states so I wonder if there is not a disconnect with the voters.

    Possibly they don't care or possibly they don't know what the Court's limits are.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  04:49 PM
  3. In the last posting (the last post would not except my comment) Jan said, "The Founders didn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/02  at  05:23 PM
  4. True, as Washington said, only the majority is to prevail.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  05:26 PM
  5. The 'tug-of-war' is a result of humanistic mediocrity pulling against those who would seek to conserve the wisdom, meaning, and values of the Founders. Conservatives of the '76 Center.

    Humanist liberals cannot improve on what was produced in 1776 - and beyond in The Constitution - for all their talky-talk.

    Mediocrity, collectivist non-value, and man-made self-justification mark the present-day socialist who cannot improve on what their "non-god" has gifted.

    The historical record of socialistic humanism is total failure, oppression, and death. Nothing can change that unbalanced record - including blind stupidity and cultural retardation.

    The Islamiac-fascists are prepared to teach our Slow Learners what they refuse to learn.

    "Over here! <To the Left!< <Yeah!"<
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  08/03  at  01:20 AM
  6. The Constitution didn't make America. It is its interpretation and the litigation it provoked that did.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/03  at  07:39 AM
  7. Ignoring the Constitution, as liberal humanistic socialists are prone to do, leaves "interpretation and litigation" to skeptical provocation by empty-headed ego-centered non-valued dolts. (Lacking a value-system produces Kerrys and Teddys.)

    People with half a brain have a clear historical picture of what we would have without the Constitution: Many many Canadian Airths passing windy wind. sic
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  08/03  at  08:39 AM
  8. Like usual, Choicecleaner, you make sense.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/03  at  10:33 AM
  9. It is well to remember both Liberals and Conservatives while differing on "separation" want many of the same problems solved. However, one believes the founders concept of the State and Local government being where problems were to be solved, others see the federal government as the place to make "fair" many of the things we face in our everyday lives.

    Yet, virtually every nation that has attempted to use the centralized (federal) approach has gone into decline. Here, manufacturing about the time of Lyndon Johnson and the great society he was creating was 30.4% of GDP and now it is about 13% and we are still losing mfg jobs to lower tax nations. (often wages difference are offset by automation and shipping costs) China, 11% for foreign to our 42% (fed 35% and ave. Mfg. state tax). Ireland 12.5% even though their wage is $1.30 higher than ours. The lowered their national debt from 120% to 27% as they raised their workers wage from 1/2 ours to that $1.30 higher.

    But, they decentrailized, deregulated and cut taxes on business and the wealthy. How can that happen here when all we here is that the wealthy and business should pay more and the worker less (even though all the taxes on business and their compliance costs are passed on to the worker in the prices he pays)? Just think, if we reformed similar to what Ireland did, we could compete with a huge number of things in this world market we are forced to compete in. And buying power, not wages, are what really matters to a working person. If I make a $100 and it doesn't buy $10 worth of goods, what have I gained with a higher wage?
    source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/bg1945.cfm
    How Ireland became the Celtic Tiger by by Sean Dorgan

    While we disagree on "separation" which was also disagreed on even in 1800, where we really hurt this nation is on our economic policies resulting from a centralized government that can't compete with lower tax and simpler tax nations with lower compliance costs.

    Often, trying to make life "fair," makes it more unfair in the long run if that attempt at "fairness" keeps us from being competitive. The best place for "fairness" is at the State and Local level. "Liberals" may have had a legitimate reason for wanting the Federal Government solve problems (some states weren't even trying, in their view, to resolve problems), but in the long run, it made things worse, not better than fighting to get the states that weren't doing the "will of the people," to reform.

    We may disagree on issues about "personal morality" but, the nation that has no discipline, right or wrong, will suffer many of the same problems we see in Europe. It is better to let each state decide what moral issues are important enough to be regulated and then let people live in the society that fits them best than to try and make the whole nation of societies (50) and sub-societies (counties and cities, etc) one big all inclusive society. The latter means nobody is happy. The first means the majority are happy.

    Since no society can be or ever has been "fair" to everyone, we have to try and at least do what is best for the society as a whole so it can survive economically, since if it doesn't, none of society can adequately have its needs met.

    This isn't about Liberals and Conservatives and which is good or which is bad. It is about the survival of a nation now about 70% to 80% in debt with $84 trillion in unfunded liabilities from social programs facing us. If we go the route of France and other European nations, nobody is going to care about "gay marriage," since they will be too busy trying to survive in a bankrupt nation that can't compete in the world market.

    Just as the socialist nations on the rise, found they had to decentralize, reform taxes to actually attract wealthy and business, we have reform not only our government but how we compete in this world market of low tax and lower compliance cost nations. Fair or not, they have the advantage and we are losing to them. We can't force those other nations to be "fair." We can only find ways to compete with them.

    (continued)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/03  at  02:18 PM
  10. And remember that all taxes are passed on to the consumer in business taxes. And all the cost of complying with those business taxes is added to the price too. No profitable business pays any tax, not one dime. All tax is paid by the consumer when he buys their goods. And, if the price including those taxes and compliance costs are higher than China's, he buys the Chinese product and the U.S. business closes or moves out of the nation and we lose jobs.

    Much of our dfferences in Conservatives and Liberals concerns "fairness." One wants government to use its power to make life "fair." Nothing wrong with wanting life "fair." But, Conservatives (most) realize that we can't compete if we use the federal government or at least it costs a lot more, than if we use private enterprise, and state or local government to solve our problems. That is why our founders demanded the Federal Government be so limited it was banned from social and moral issues. Thoese were left to states to resolve and still should be if we are to compete in the world.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/03  at  02:34 PM
  11. Jan,

    You said: "Yet, virtually every nation that has attempted to use the centralized (federal) approach has gone into decline. Here, manufacturing about the time of Lyndon Johnson and the great society he was creating was 30.4% of GDP and now it is about 13% and we are still losing mfg jobs to lower tax nations."

    I don't think you are making much sense here. The United States has never attempted centralized approach to manufacturing or economics. If the U.S. has lost ground in those areas to other countries it is because it became inefficient, such as in the auto industry, e.g., Japan learned to build better cars. Also much of the loss of manufacturing to other countries was due more to an inevitability - other countries catching up to the U.S. in capability. Also, the U.S. has preached that other countries should be more like it. And when they did become more like it, in industry and commerce, they took away jobs.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/03  at  11:20 PM
  12. We are much more centralized now. We have done many of the same things Ireland did and has reversed. Remember, every law overturned by the Supreme Court is a centralization of power at the federal level, an interstate system (while needed) is a centralizaton of power, the welfare system, social security, medicare, no child left behind, natioanl evironament policies, national regulation of business, national funding of grants, roads, construction projects, schools, tunnels, etc are all centralizing of powers. A nation income tax is a centralization of power. Actually the auto industry is where we have gained manufacturing jobs. (I don't recall if that was just assembly or total auto related but believe assembly only) We just moved them to right to work states and into factories run by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. They have added more jobs than the ex Big Three lost according to the last article I read on that. And, it shows since they have passed Ford and Chrysler in sales.

    You are 100% correct on other countries catching up. They now are preparing to also pass us in education, research and development, and consumption by a rapidly growing consumer base. China is now number one in all but Oil Consumption and will pass us in a decade or so. India is rapidly growing their consumption too as their middle class is growing rapidly.

    It isn't that we didn't want the other nations to catch up, it is that we didn't do what Ireland did and prepare for it so we could all prosper even as the caught up. Ireland proved that while some manufacturing would never come back, shipping costs allowed many factories to return that needed less labor, more skilled workers and Ireland has a well educated workforce.

    We have greatly centrailized our government, not the manufacturing. It was the need to decentralize government that help Ireland, according to the Irish leaders that talk about their success. Returning some, not all, of the control of the government oversight of manufacturing, shipping, and other transportation regulation, and solutions to unemployment etc. to local hands closest to the problem (local government) is better than solving from a central or federal government.

    Actually, much of our manufacturing only held on due to tremendous gains in productivity as long as they did. But as the experts say, when the price can no longer compete the company can no longer compete.

    Tupperware faced a tough choice. Walmart told them that if they wanted to sell tupperware in Walmart they would have to compete with Sterilite, a foreign competitor. That was true. Consumers are fickle. Tupperware said they couldn't at the price that Sterilte containers sold for. Walmart told them then you better move to China. Now that wasn't a threat but a fact. Even if Tupperware didn't want to sell through Walmart and comepete directly with Sterilite, they still would have lost so many sales as people went to Walmart and bought Sterlite, they would probably lose so much business, shareholders would abandon them. So they moved to China and they compete. There headquarters are here and I'm not sure, maybe they still have some plants here but they are very profitable and pay a dividend of 88 cents and Sterilite which is a "private company" is still in 2nd place behind it.

    Since I earn my money by following stocks and how companies are performing and how the shareholders buy or sell their stock, I try to stay up on a lot of business news to stay abreast of trends. I listen to about 4 to 6 hrs of financial news from Asia each night on Bloomberg and CNBC World. There news of U.S. companies is often less biased or filled with unrelable projections since they don't have anything to gain from an American Co. in a nation far away from their broadcast headquarters. I am a little more suspicious of their Asia coverage but for the most part it seems faily well done. They cover Austrailia, Europe, and the U.S. as well as Asia.

    Our government policies have been bad for decades. However, often people will point to the tax breaks we give business and there are a bunch. But, what they don't realized is that the compliance cost is often 4 to 7 times the tax they pay. So, in order to save $100 in tax, they may spend $90. So, lets use a $100 tax and with breaks cut it to $15 and say it is only four times that in complance cost. That would add $60 to the cost for complance making the tax and compliance $75 for a total saving of $25 even though the tax was only $15 that went to the tax revenues. With a simple policy the company could pay double the tax, have another $20 and still have only cost $50 total and the government would have got twice the revenue.

    Our tax code and rulings are over 60,000 pages and most of the time when you even call the IRS for a tax question, they get it wrong.

    (continued)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/04  at  12:56 AM
  13. Quote:
    8,500,000 = The number of times the IRS gave the wrong answer to taxpayers seeking help to comply with the tax code in 1993 (taxpayers still are held responsible for errors that result from bad advice from the IRS). A national retail sales tax will be so simple and convenient that taxpayers will not need any help.

    47 = The percentage of calls to the IRS that resulted in inaccurate information, according to a 1987 General Accounting Office study.

    5,000,000 = The number of correction notices the IRS sends out each year that turn out to be wrong.

    40 = The percentage of revenue that is returned when taxpayers challenge penalties.
    http://www.scrapthecode.com/educating/taxfacts.html
    ========================
    However, mentioning manufacturing being centralized, for most of the 1900's it was "centralized" in some high tax, union states, where the combination of high taxes and union demands destroyed competition which is why, though the auto industry now employs more workers, they are in lower tax, right to work states.

    Right now we are seeing a manufacturing boom in Arizona where the state legislature passed laws repealing income tax on manufacturing profits. However, rather than win jobs from overseas, we are winning jobs from places that were union, high tax states and while our population is growing at something like 9,000 a month, other states are stagnant and Mass. even lost population as births couldn't even keep up with people leaving.

    Not all of the U.S. is in as bad a shape as the old manufacturing states where most of the manufacturing was located. They did get hit hard and still are. But, what is interesting is the number of businesses that can compete with just a little lower tax and labor rate. Our productivity increases have almost been enough but not quite and of course, some sector can't compete period because they have high labor needs or the shipping costs are too low to be a significant factor.

    We have another thing going if we could just get some reform. There wages are rising faster than ours. Eventually you will see many nations that with shipping, can't compete with manufacturing here. We could lower our prices 30% and even raise wages and increase tax revenues with good tax reform.

    Sorry I misled you with my poor wording on centralization of government powers, not manufacturing. I just assumed everybody knew that when a nation decentralizes they are referring to government regulation and power as was the case in Ireland.

    Some more on Ireland
    quote:
    Attempts at government intervention proved to be no better. Continued increases in public spend
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/04  at  01:09 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.