MY CONCERN

Authored by William Robert Barber

Can conservative ideology, by means measurable, (an election) successfully challenge the ideas of the liberal progressive philosophy? In other words, is conservative political ideology able, founded solely on the merits of its principles, to persuade its way into voter acceptance? Noting that the voter must withstand and decipher the bellows and illusions cast by a candidate’s rhetorical eloquence, personal charm, and charismatic presence. Is it reasonably possible for a voter inclusive of the plethora of scurrilous accusations and the often voluminous proliferation of meaningless misdirection offered by the opposition able to acknowledge with gravitas the meaningfulness of conservative ideology? Is it achievable for a citizen to put aside the subjective-superfluous in favor of the objective-substantive?

Further, while on the pathway to impassive contemplation, one wherein the basis of deduction is factually driven, can the voter disregard the instinctual sway of a predetermined mindset? Is it credible to believe that considering the weight of peer and family pressure, as well as, traditional beliefs that a citizen could cast a vote on the basis of sustentative evidence even if that evidence was the contrary of their ingrained inspiration?

Respective of intellect’s two remarkable derivatives, curiosity and imagination, conversion from either a conservative or liberal ideology to the other is atypical. For the human psyche to willingly facilitate a dramatic adaptation or revision of an heretofore intrinsic political ideology is almost as likely as Nancy Pelosi becoming a Republican; historicity has verified that the resilience of a preformed opinion is stubbornly unyielding.

But then facts, good sense, prudence, and palpable evidence to the contrary of a closely held belief have the power to convert the most ardent liberal progressive to finally see the way and the truth. Well, there is the requirement of the conservative persuader to demonstrate a cogent explanation; noting that, all such explanations requires in the first cause, a cognitive, rational, and reasonable recipient.    

This next election will answer many of the questions presented. Will the populous vote for a government of ever-increasing largeness or one of limited size hence minimal federal power. Are the voters going to validate an entitlement society or rescind. Are we to be taxed more or taxed less. Is America’s martial reach to be enhanced or abated?

Will liberal progressivism replace all effectual vestiges of the conservative movement? Will the socialist be reelected?

All I seem to have are questions…

FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE DEVILS FEAR TO TREAD

Authored by William Robert Barber

Every negative reference to Bain Capital’s business decisions and the financial results thereof is counter-intuitive to the electoral effort of replacing President Obama. These scurrilous accusations are pro vexing, baseless of fact, and at its core blatantly disingenuous. As explained by the Gingrich faithful the charges enunciated by Gingrich and his PAC was media placed to belittle Romney’s claim that he has proven business scruples and to specifically denounce Romney’s claim that his venture capital company created jobs. Instead, all I think that Gingrich exampled was an emotionally driven man that has difficulties matching up the Newt Gingrich he wish he was with the Newt Gingrich his record validates.

Gingrich claims his record is categorical. His achievements unambiguous; he created, under the administrations of Regan and Clinton millions of jobs. I want Gingrich and all the other politicians who make such claims that government does not create even one private sector job much less millions. There is a plethora of evidence that government: Vis-à-vis regulations, bureaucratic mambo-jambo, cronyism, and the insistence of implanting an administrative process that is arcade often ridiculous, certainly arbitrary, and specifically designed for the politically aligned, and the empowered, do displace private sector jobs and opportunities.

I do believe that Gingrich is a conservative. But not an uncompromising conservative; he was not as Speaker of the House of Representative uncompromising and as a private entrepreneur he compromised his conservative ideals to service client needs so to put a buck or two into his pocket. Ronald Regan is discerned by most current conservatives as the ideal example of a conservative. This same politician granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, raised taxes, and championed the progressive tax system. Ronald Regan was a conservative compared to Jimmy Carter; Gingrich and Romney are conservative compared to Barrack Obama. I am not suggesting that Regan, Gingrich, or Romney acted with duplicitous intent or are extraordinarily hypocritical, or purposefully deceitful. Politicians, when vying for power, as illustrated by all of these attack ads, are carnivorous. They will eat their own.

Our present legislative process of governing is more than simply ambiguous and confounding it is as with our tax system impossible for the average layperson to comprehend. If we accept the previous sentence as truthful. If all our presidential candidates bear the identical traits of embracing hyperbole, willfully committing falsities, outright lies and disinformation under the banner of standard campaign hard-knuckles politics what is believable?

All Gingrich has done is manufacture kindle for the Obama general election and the liberal progressive propaganda machine. Sadly, this professional politician who, while in private practice compromised his conservative ideals to make a buck, has turned his run for the presidency into an Obama affiliate.

Prior to his recent actions I actually had respect for the man…

SQUABBLE: THE DEFINITIVE OF AMERICAN GOVERNANCE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Those that govern have been at each other’s throat since President Washington’s appointment of Chief Justice John Jay to the Supreme Court, the seating of the first congress and Alexander Hamilton’s insistence on establishing those certain means of paying off the federal debt. The clash between Northern and Southern politicians over where to locate the capital and the frustrated bitterness of Southern representatives when congresses’ Northern majority passed, with only six Southern votes, the Excise or Duties on Distilled Spirits Act. The tax on liquor was created to cover the cost of the federal assumption of State debts; withstanding the neediness of the legislation, the tax ignited the infamous Pennsylvania Whisky Rebellion in 1794 wherein President Washington ordered federal troops to quell and subsequently ordered the leaders hanged. Henry Lee of Virginia (later to be the father of Robert E. Lee) wrote to James Madison complaining that he would rather risk the loss of life and holdings, “than to live under the rule of a fixed insolent Northern majority.”

In the early days of the republic the precedence was forthcoming the frame of lawfulness was encapsulated within the literal interpretation of the constitution itself. Specificity as to the operating interrelationship between the three branches of government had not (with exceptions) been recognized as constitutionally conventional. Then Chief Justice John Marshall took office. The justice defined, affirmed, and created along with the Chief Justice’s original concept of judicial review, the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government. He metaphorically in the 34 years of his tenure as Chief Justice took the bull by the horns and almost single-handedly clarified and laid the basis for American constitution law.

Surely these were tenuous times for the republic; aside from the nation’s growing pains there was the natural difficulty of implementing the words and meaningfulness of the constitution into lawfully actionable measures. Divisiveness, jealousy, and the divergent economic wherewithal between the North and South seeded resentfulness along with numerous displays of disparity over ideological viewpoints.

Considering the background of the recent French Revolution one could appreciate the Federalist inclination to strengthen the powers of the federal government. Chief Justice Marshall was a federalist, so was the person who nominated him, President John Adams, the federalist controlled all branches of government until Thomas Jefferson was elected in the presidential election of 1800. Marshall favored an expansive reading of the enumerated powers and was consistent in his demand that federal law subjugated State.

The Federalist papers authored by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay noted, “you must first enable government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

It is the “oblige it to control itself,” portion that has failed implementation. It’s feasible that the winning of the Civil War by President Lincoln’s federalist government, the governing of the defeated South by Marshall Law, and the dismantling, by the Supreme Court, (i.e. the 1873 SC interpretation of the 14^th Amendment known as the “Slaughter House cases) of the 1789 constitutional limitations expressed within the principal of federalism that initiated the progressive era. An era of economic and property regulation; a time of expansive governmental mischief, wherein, clauses within the constitution originally intended to constrain, were reinterpreted, such as the Commerce Clause, as an opportunity for the federal government to grasp power not restrict.

Since the very beginning, opprobrious characters have played their part across the panorama of America’s political history. Whether their intent was honorable or dishonorable, sensible or ludicrous, right or wrong, their effect has been felt; nothing much has changed. Today the political choice in the U.S. is whether the populous will vote in Obama for a second term as president and therefore espouse, endorse, and henceforth ratify the progressive’s entitlement belief. Or whether the voters will choose an ideological belief that is founded on merit and self-determination.

As a conservative the knowing that Obama could just as easily win as loose is very discombobulating for me. All I am left with as of this date is the wish and hope that the Republicans can pull together a winner and not self-destruct before the primary is over. 

PROMISES, PROMISES, AND MORE PROMISES

Authored by William Robert Barber

We are presently experiencing the result of politicians winning elections on promises made to those who fashioned their election. These of the elected class with a straight face boldly pronounced to labor unions, to those workers who pay no federal taxes, to the unemployable and to the unemployed, to those on welfare, to city, county and state service personnel, to one and all they promised a plethora of recompense and benefits for services rendered or simply because. All that was necessary to guarantee the fulfillment of such was to cast their vote in the proper column.

Well lo and behold today the promises of yesteryear have come to be reconciled. The foolishness of promises made has come home to roost. The counter parties of these government inspired agreements are seeking nothing less than the honoring of contractual terms and conditions. And the government must renege. Or tax more, and more, and then a little more. And these politicians who promised such assurances, well, they or their scions are still promising.

Interestingly, despite the observable fiscal impossibility of sustaining an ever appreciating public debt to fund government spending, the Democratic response is too bandy about the issue as if any further concern is wasteful effort.  Rather than reduce the expenditures or truncate the costly process of governing, the elected of the Obama brethren, would rather charge the creators of taxable revenue with “not paying their fair share.” Of course no one on the Democratic side of the isle has produced a budget; no Democrat (including the president) has come forth and declared the exactness of what is a “fair share,” and as the natural prerogative of politicians lacking the sustenance necessary for a meaningful debate demagoguery is their preferred rebuttal to any query or actionable on the subject of presenting a consequential legislative fiscal policy.

The continuum: U.S. government has over the last three years managed to produce deficits excessive of a trillion dollars a year. This debt-enhanced fiscal policy that is allowed to function free of any budgetary restraint (since there is no budget) as long as the interest on the national debt is outrageously diminutive and most importantly, if treasury auctions have many more buyers than sellers.

Remembering that our nation’s trading partners have accepted dollars as payment for products imported and sold into this country. The reason and rational of China buying our national debt is founded on the premise that such is the cost of exporting into the U.S.  This purchase of U.S. debt by China will continue and be, futuristically, directly proportional in volume to China’s ability to create and service the needs, wants, and desires of its domestic market. And of course, as long as, the U.S. is by far and away the largest economy in the world and as such the grandest consumer market that has ever existed the purchasing of U.S. debt by China and others will continue unabated.

Nevertheless, the servicing of debt has forced the Federal Reserve to print fiat currency, tons of paper currency, which has been disbursed to States, certain cities, various governmental departments, and to non-discretionary obligations. It is these disbursements; this particular servicing of excessive governmental spending that will oblige Humpty-Dumpty to fall off the wall.  

Because Obama was elected in 2008 and the Republicans took the House of Representatives in 2010 stasis is the proper descriptive of congress. Neither side can overwhelm the other, so the cognitive amongst us believe that an election will decide and thus mandate a specific vector, a unifying true course of action. But I fear that because of the negative slings and arrows that will frame this particular election the results of November 2012 will not unify, instead, the odds are in favor of ratcheting up the intensity of peoples’ ideological differing. My sense is neither political party will be prompted by the electoral results to adopt a compromise of their accepted ideological doctrine; nor will the looser submit governess to the winner.

We have layered our institutions with the excessive-burdensomeness of an ambiguously enigmatic process; a governing process that strives to traverses an all inclusive spectrum of wishing to satisfy every constituent. It is as if government was a perpetual motion machine provoked by the inertia of public opinion polls, media disposition, faceless staffers, the appointed, the influential and lots of cash.

The U.S. government has over the last one hundred years moved away from a governing by law and has instead embraced the doctrine of governing by men. This nation as never before selects laws to enforce and laws to turn a blind eye to. We have weighed and measured our fiscal ills, declared our intent to remedy, and immediately start spending more money.

We are a leaderless nation vectored by the contrarian’s of George Washington’s essence, as well as, his advice. Washington did imply that political parties will destroy the Republic…

I THINK THE ANSWER IS TERM LIMITS

Authored by William Robert Barber

The polarized respondent to the query: What caused the 2008 financial crisis is intriguing. Admittedly, as a conservative, I am particularly interested in the liberal progressives’ deductions, inferences, and ultimate conclusion; however, the Republicans’ reasoning for not engaging their congressional counter-parts on the Fannie/Freddie issue more forcefully is also of quirkiest interest.

The Democrats accuse the greedy Wall Street personas, the reproachable bankers, insufficient regulation for the financial meltdown, and resolve that capitalism, the free enterprise system, and possibly even the private ownership of certain property is effectually an outdated economic methodology; one that requires an extensive European modeled upgrade.

For the Republicans, conservatives as well as Rhinos, the cause of the financial crisis is simple with most of the blame attributed to the score upon score of years the Democrats controlled Fannie and Freddie. This Democratic control of the means to finance coupled in with the idea, that home ownership (like healthcare) is a right, and the forcing of banks (by congress via legislation) to lend money to those that could not substantiate financial wherewithal was by any reasonable assessment a financial catastrophe awaiting opportunity. To add more wood to this fire, banks-broker-dealers, and mortgage lenders found an additional length of rope to hang everyone when they tied in the creative financial instruments of mortgage-interest securitization, asset-backed obligations, and mortgage derivatives pledged to underlying value. Naturally, there were warranted allies to fill in all of the blanks. Exampled by government created rating agencies who took a look at the transaction and rated them AAA or AA+. The downside was protected by the large, highly rated, multijurisdictional AIG insurance corporation; this was the ‘put’ surety to cover the outside chance of the real estate market imploding to the downside.      

Well, now that the blame has been assigned, rightfully or wrongfully, along ideological lines, and the blame-game considered passé, damage complete, the supposed rescue in place; now the Securities and Exchange Commission files a complaint. The charge is against former Fannie and Freddie executives. Claiming that the rascals held a lot more subprime loans than they publicly called subprime. Suggesting that they in collusion with private sector entities Fannie and Freddie drove down underwriting standards such as co-sponsoring in 1999 of Countrywide’s “Fast and Easy” program. A lending policy that gave buyers loans without proof of their income or assets. Interestingly, the lawsuit is prompted not by justice for the public but to protect the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie?

Imagine right up to the moment of seizure the Bush administration along with representatives Frank and Dodd were touting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were well-capitalize and solvent.

In every trade there needs to be a buyer and a seller. The only real requirement is that parties agree on a price. On the option market there is a ‘call’ to the upside and a ‘put’ to the downside. Real estate is a commodity. Economies of all sorts ebb and tide; rise and fall, such is the natural order of a free market. Bets were made that favored an ever appreciating real estate value; surety to the downside was paid in the form of a premium to AIG to protect the depreciative possibility.

What went wrong? No one knew the magnitude of bets made to the upside; AIG did not charge enough of a premium to offset the risk. When the real estate market crashed there was a run on liquidity AIG ran out of cash/liquidity and could not pay off on the surety to the downside.

The bugle blasted. The government to the rescue, they printed the paper and saved the day, or did they?

Politicians protect the ideological values of their constituencies. They do so at the cost of fiscal discipline, prudence, and the logic of common deductive sense. Politicians strive to attain and retain power. If we citizen want government to function we must enact term limits. Term limits eliminate the possibility of professional politicians and therefore to a large degree we eliminate the reasoning of enacting stupid for the sake of reelection.

My fear of course is that Obama will be reelected, government consumes more of the private sector, and America declines into another European like country. I am not sure we can print enough paper to get us out of that jam.  

THE PAYROLL TAX STUFF

Authored by William Robert Barber

This most recent controversy regarding the Obama two month continuance of the payroll tax cut is the perfect example of congress’ inability to prudently address issues of national importance. The supposed reason for adapting this initial one year decrease on the payroll tax was to stimulate job growth. The idea is or was that (for those that work) these persons would take home more money. The conclusion being, that if these persons take home more money they would spend more and thus stimulate the economy. Such a cash infusion would be discretionarily imputed directly into the   economy; resulting, as the reasoning follows, in an increase in consumer spending, which would eventually, force merchants to hire more people.  Well, it did not happen.

Whatever those that work did with the extra cash it was not to go out and purchase goods and services. There is some evidence that these working stiffs bought down existing debt instead of incurring more. A logical, I-now-know-better response to any effort that did not work is (in the first cause) not repeat the effort; well, not so it seems in the world of congressional politics.

It is far more important for the Democrats to position the Republicans (irrationally) as the party that favors millionaires, a party that is fundamentally unfair and will not give the average Joe a break.

It is far more important for liberal political strategist to point out that the extreme wing (Tea Partiers and the far-right) of the Republican Party will not compromise. That they are ideologues instead of fair mined; that their ideology is valued above the best interest of the nation.

Pundits of political persuasion, news-reporting-media, their opinion-makers, those that craft poll questions, Senators Reid and Schumer, and “the great campaigner” President Obama, have framed this issue as an economically sensible approach to the country’s current economic malaise. Really! The nation is burdened with a 15 trillion dollar debt and the good idea is to discount the specific tax revenue designed to fund social security? Hmm…interesting! If payroll tax abatement is a viable economic tonic, a tactic warranted by wonks and clever economist, if this is really a good idea, why then does President Obama, Reid, Schumer disbelieve that significantly discounting individual and corporate tax is a great idea? Why are they against broadening the tax base and actually have all the people who earn an income, regardless, of how much they earn, pay a share of the monies used to enable the benefits they partake of?  

The answer to the preceding question is simple: vote purchasing. They have promised and will continue to promise, all those many millions of voters that earn less than $45,000 per year with deductions, “no worries, your taxes will not go up, I and my Democratic friends will tax the rich. They will pay your share of the tax burden. Just remember to vote Democratic across the board.”

From a political gamesmanship prospective the Republicans foolishly managed this entire issue of payroll tax holiday. One reason was they thought that this particular issue was about fiscal governess they had no idea it was solely a political gesture designed to erode the ethos of Republicanism and favor the tax & spend Democrats. The Speaker of the House naively granted the Democrats and Obama a winning hand; of course, in two months this very issue comes up again. So the dealer will deal more cards and give each player another opportunity to make their bets.

Regretfully, the recent payroll tax melodrama as expressed by the political wheeler-dealers of the Democratic Party, the media’s reporters, and the pundits’ explanation of what’s happening is the result not really of the relevant particulars, but, with a blatant lack of strong, believable, vision persuasive, charismatically enhanced, forthwith style of political leadership. America is engrossed in the process and has abandoned leadership for ambivalent minimalism. Its senior management consults more than leads and is more by practice referenced as sophistic than stoic. Perception and attitude run together…we as a nation will never be any more than we believe ourselves to be. So if political gamesmanship is our preference rather than addressing the pressing issues of fiscal solvency…it is impossible to achieve sound prudent governess. 

WE ARE DRIFTING ONTO THE LAND OF NEVER-EVER

Authored by William Robert Barber

Government just cannot keep its hands out of the marketplace…in my business credit card processing, the Dodd-Frank financial over-all law has, with the original intent of lowering debt-fee’s by establishing a cap on the fee amount has actually done nothing less than increase debt fees for the majority of these types of transactions. The IRS not to be outdone has mandated that credit card processing companies report all transactions, as a result, merchant pay an extra monthly fee for this service. Naturally, in the end of the end, it is consumer that pays the fees as merchants raise prices on goods and services.

I realize this government interference is a commonality with a very long history of constancy; nevertheless, one would think these Harvard and Yale graduates knew better, but every year they prove me wrong.

It was the federal government that created rating agencies; after the last economic turn-down, it was the federal government that turned their wrath on these very same agencies and the banks, investment-bankers, government entities, foreign and domestic, and broker-dealers that weighted their bets on the rating of a particular investment. Today the fed’s are haggling over the language of rules within the Dodd-Frank Bill so to diminish the reliance on rating agencies while still insisting on their use. So my assumption is that in the near future there will be a new rating system. Wherein the top tier of risk-free and therefore audit-valued investments will be U.S. Government debt, now isn’t this interesting? Domestic banks, insurance companies, broker-dealers, and traders of every description will be, in essence, induced into purchasing U.S. debt. In other words, to the disadvantage of corporate and securitized obligations it is the federal government that has, by rule and regulation, the competitive edge. Once again it is our government in a head to head contest for the available cash to invest in direct competition with the taxpaying private enterprise that pays the government’s debts.

One must ask: Is the amount of money spent in this Herculean effort to eliminate the risk of an economic downturn worth the effort and the cost?

Of course the issues addressed have more to do with political nonsense and ambition then it does to do with protecting the taxpayers form another bailout. My anxiety is that politics will triumph over the covenants of rational and reasonable, politicians will utilize the utility of fear to transcend prudence and the nation’s economy will suffer.

I wish I could find a viable haven to invest with absolute confidence my citizenry time and energy; but, all I can really do is choose the least harmful political party. And today that is the Republicans. I do understand there are many intelligent, smart, patriotic, and cool Americans who defiantly disagree with my political ideology and that such disagreements are accepted and expected. But I do think that we can no longer tax and fee our way out of our economic predicament. I do realize there are those that consider differently, however, just as they have their intrinsic values and their particular interpretive of global events, I have mine. I think all us Americans are seeking a solution to our profound disagreements. If the nation is fortunate the election will settle all such differing and abate befuddlement. But, more than likely, this forthcoming election will not resolve our disagreement; it will however set a vector while we all wait for the next election.   

I do wish I could believe that government is sanguine, righteous, wise, above the chaos of politics and prudent in legislation, spending of the taxpayers funds, noble, and lawful; the truth is I cannot. Well, what to do, what to do, I just found out that Santa Claus is funded by the fed’s and all the elves are joining the public employees union.

Merry Christmas to all and I wish the very best for 2012!

AMERICA THE SUPERPOWER

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Spanish American and the subsequent Philippine American War launched America onto the global stage of martial intervention. For preemptive reasons or a defensive reply to aggression, for causes misplaced or misinterpreted, the United States have expended its blood and treasure virtually all over the world. Subsequent to the experience of over hill and dale expeditionary forays, two world wars, and numerous police actions the aggregation of which equates into thousands of casualties, trillions of dollars, and oceans of tears; the nation is now obliged as the world’s super power.

Interestingly, it was the winning of WWII that initiated the coming out of America as a superpower. For America, super-power status was not a choice but a result. In the current concerns of nation state rivalry, it is America’s multi-venue worldwide disbursement of commercial, as well as, deployed, technically superior, combat experienced martial forces that offer the warranted-alternative to disagreeable possibilities.  As such, America is a force of and for consideration in regards to any Russian or Chinese transnational exploitive ambitions.

Nevertheless, America is stymied. As if weighted down by an anvil and tossed into the sea, the nation fights to tread water. Its debt threatens its quality of international respect. Its armed forces engage in wars that effectually fiscally divest out of America so to invest in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its population divided by two diametrically different political ideologies and its government spending excessively more than it receives.      

As if entrapped within the nexus of it’s on making America has arrived at its self-imposed reality; if America wants to protect its homeland the traditional policy is that it must provide protection for all of its allies.  Inclusively, with rare exception, America must not only shoulder-alone the expense of such protection but, in addition, the nation finds it necessary in the case of Pakistan for example to payout billions of dollars to other nation states to bolster their armaments. It is as if America has positioned itself to extort from its taxpayers the ransom of an excessively expensive defense budget.  

After years of warfare America is now poised to withdraw from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan; all the same there will be no melting of swords into plowshares. The world is acknowledged, even by the marginally naïve, as dangerous and tenuous. The nation’s duty roster calls for a stratagem that is focused not only on the reality of the moment but one that demands strategies that also provide a surety of national continuum into the foreseeable future.  

The God-awful truth is that peace is never secured. History has recorded the negligible effect of pretty words coupled with diplomatic niceties. Evidence documents that polite persuasion and social niceties will not stand alone to secure the future. Diplomacy is best advantaged by not having to trust in one’s best of intentions.

The threat in a nutshell is the pretensions of the strong, the unpredictable propensity of the weak, the often-foolish acts of the audaciously bold, the stupid, and the behaviorally dysfunctional is the combination that creates catastrophe. This combination, with devastating effect, has congregated many times in the past; it’s amassing is as inevitable as death being the result of life. The prevailing idea of war is that it has an end. It does not. War is as constant as commerce. Intensity may vary; indeed, one may find a time when the major powers were not actively trying to destroy the other, but, that time is usually made up by other then major powers actively engaged in trying to destroy the other.  

One may ask, “Well, what is the alternative?” How about not to believe in fairytales? Is it not in the interest of this nation to understand its reality? Living as if in a Pepsi Cola commercial will not deter aggression nor facilitate the continuance of overwhelming force. Have we Americans not wasted enough blood and treasure?

We have the inventory within our arsenal but we lack the will to act. We have the means to effectively engage the marketplace but we deny the movers and shakers the necessary risk-reward opportunity. We clearly understand that the legislative process is more than simply cumbersome it is a Byzantine structure coupled with purposeful ambiguity administered by professional politicians, unions, and their faithful bureaucrats.   

If blood, and treasure is the price of superpower status then let’s at least invoice all the beneficiaries.

THE RUBICON IS BEFORE US

Authored by William Robert Barber

This next election will either reject the liberal progressive philosophy or sustain and confirm its continuum. The legislation enacted by the Obama administration will be validated, upon his reelection, or it will be annulled by his loosing. The heretofore power of the federal government will be curtailed and the tenth amendment to the constitution reaffirmed or the rights and sovereignty of States is denied. Public employee unions will prevail with as much or more influence or such will abate. The federal deficit will be decreased by real cuts in spending or marginally decreased by tax increases. The national economy will reconfirm capitalism or vector in the direction of more central planning and socialistic notions.

This next election will define America’s ethos, its capitalistic resolve or its insistence on striving to enable a European style system of economic, social, and cultural governing. This election is the most important clearly defining vote any citizen will make in its lifetime.

The mainstay issue is the definition of government’s role in a free society; there are citizens who have a belief that encourages greater government involvement and those, in bold contrast, that prefer limited governance. Many citizens find solace and surety in government assurances and are willing to trade-in potions of their individual liberty and freedom for such warrants. Others reject the entire conceptual of such a trade and indeed consider increased government intervention as unconstitutional, a threat to their Americanism, and downright tyrannical.

Each of us must choose. We must pose the question and answer; we must adapt a belief of certain governing principles. I have done so. 

I do believe government (another word for society) should provide for the mentally challenged, encourage the blind to cope with their handicap, materially support the insane, financially sustain the disabled thus unemployable, facilitate the needs of the elderly poor, and shield children from abuse.

I also reason that the coercive force of governmental agencies, departments, and offices should enforce the constitutionally lawful laws of the land. The primary objective of enforcement is so to insure that this nation is one of laws not of men. Additionally, the armed forces must, in the broadest context of meaningfulness, protect the nation and its people from martial aggression, sanction its sovereignty, and render by any means applicable unflinching surety for its future. 

I do not believe politicians should utilize the facilities of government to enhance their lives; this prohibiting would include the profitable facilitating of special knowledge to advance their person, family, or friends. These very same should be barred from pledging and promising to those that pay no federal income taxes a promise: ‘if you vote for me and my political party I and my party will insure not only your continuance of exception from federal income taxes; but, the richer than you will pay more in taxes to pay for beneficial federal programs.’

Presently, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs available in this country. Those that want to work can work. The issue for the intractable unemployed is more a manner of job position/description and pay then a matter that there are no jobs available. And as long as the government gives the unemployed money for not working, well, they will not work.

Of course the Obama administration and their sympathizers contend that well-known economist suggest that paying people not to work is the best bang-for-the-stimulus-buck and a darn good investment. If that is so then why not put the unemployed on a five-year unemployment agreement and pay them $100,000.00 per year? It is absurd to assert that paying people for not working is going create a functioning economy. The policy may not positively stimulate the economy but it will buy votes.

What the liberal progressives are saying is that if the government gives people money they will spend it and when that spending occurs the economy benefits. Hmm…I wonder (after unemployment insurance is exhausted) where the money from the government to the unemployed comes from. Oh yes, the government prints it or taxes the people to pay those that do not work.

Nevertheless, such wrongheaded illogically inspired nonsense will generate empathy and emotionally founded simpatico for the political party that endorses such payments. As for the politician or party that endorses a counter-argument, the politician that challenges the sense of it all, well, they will be defamed, belittled, and cast as a Charles Dickens Mr. Scrooge.

Because there will always be a distance between perception and reality all decision makers are professional guessers. Withstanding the enormity of the issue, these decision makers, by the virtue of their being are everlastingly striving to cast the illusion of propriety, prudence, and diligent sobriety on the outside while on the inside insecurity prevails.

But when the problem and answer is evidenced; doubt eliminated and the decision makers still cannot make a decision, the workingman’s definition of politics or incompetence has just been explained.

Here’s the deal. After spending hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars, respectful of the merit of one’s political ideology, government cannot effectively, efficiently, or even with the bare rudimental of requirements service the desires, needs, or wants of it citizenry no matter how much it taxes, decrees, or resolves to facilitate. History has documented volumes of failed governable attempts to right a wrong, correct an injustice, enable a moral good, or interject its power where it should not have.

The Obama interpretive of fairness as exampled in his governance is not an economic policy, and if it was a policy it will not work; such, at its roots nothing less than campaign exuberance, has never worked. Government promises of surety are taken at the price of one’s liberty. In addition, one must resign oneself to the loss of individual choice. If one votes for a liberal progressive government one must as a consequence forsaken individualism and by deduction one has chosen collectivism; upon such an occurrence, eventually, the ethos of Americanism will be extinguished. This next election is critical…

THE DISREGARD OF RATIONAL AND REASONABLE

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is a belief that as a manner of endeavor the sanguine quality of rational and reasonable is a demeanor of human constancy. This belief prompts many to believe that prudence and good sense are a certainty amongst and within a wide girth of substantive transactions.  For example, the forming of legislative policy is believed to be founded on premises derived from the result of prudent-logical deduction. Conceptually, the idea is that the legislator acts to enhance the public good; it therefore follows that what is logical, assiduous, principled, and morally compliant owes its breeding to what is rational and reasonable. Furthermore, the supposition of belief is that rational and reasonable is not only omnipresent, particularly in material transactions, but factually embodies the palpable cognitive of all sapient thinking.

Now, if that actually was the truthfulness of the matter, wouldn’t that all be very lovely? But instead, those in power and those that seek power create counter-intuitive impediments; they trade their values and compromise beliefs. As matter of established sway they can be counted on to pervert whatever was the original intent. Those in power or seeking it are always perched on the verge of a wanting, opaque determinative; some cause to separate them from their peers. The powerful pay more attention to the means to the end than the meaningfulness of the end. With willful acquiescence they readily resolve to abandon the literal meaningfulness of the constitution to suit their ideals, stylistic inclinations, or personal particulars. They cheerfully create for self-serving purpose pecuniary opportunities that veer the legislative process away from the vector of good sense and prudence to one of as much cronyism as righteous governess.

If one could trust in the constancy of rational and reasonable, the operational process of managing, regulating, and enforcing would be facile and deliberate. But the truths of motivational norms are elusive. I am beginning to think ‘rational and reasonable’ might be a software application; a program that intermediately intercedes into the fray of what is illogical, extralegal, and insane and then, by cause willy-nilly or discretionary, withdraws its effectiveness.  

Withstanding the unreliability or the measured veracity of rational and reasonable, for the majority, not only is rational and reasonable considered a constant in material application, it is ordained as a predetermined sapient trait; an integral constant within the human endeavor. Indeed, such an understanding is the probable platform of pre-agreement that is automatically inserted into all policy or agreement making. The believers consider rational and reasonable as an Ipso Facto, as a conclusive acceptance, a component of the beginning and the end, all wrapped into the one of an a-priori assumption.

One can certainly understand the why-fore of such an assumption. After all, it is the rational and reasonable that creates the wherewithal for comparative analysis. The problem solving mindset of pragmatic thinking — it is the deductive analysis that precedes conclusion. Therefore, critical to the resolution of any problem, the first cause of fundamental existent is the predeterminative: Rational and Reasonable. In other words, there is comfort in the knowing that as long as peoples of the world and their institutions are consistently rational in their thought and likewise reasonable in their behavior, the process of deductive reasoning will always result in the correct conclusion.

But of course the world (according to Bill Barber) is not rational nor reasonable. History indicates that a portion of the world takes its turn at expressing its brand of counter-intuitiveness, counter-productiveness, and outright insanity. Certainly there are numerous instances of actions persecuted, affirmed, and devised by the nation state to evidence the diagnostic that if not clinically insane clearly these well-documented actions are examples of explicit behavioral dysfunctional.

In spite of the rational reasonableness of any persuasion, it is not rational or reasonable to believe that North Korea is going reform its dysfunctional behavior. Such acknowledgement applies to Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Iran… well, the list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, policy-makers continue to conjure contractual agreements that presume the counter-party to be rational and reasonable. Our supposed allies are the countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have extensive and intensive contractual relationships with both. But clearly, the actions of these counter-parties do not enhance – or even meet – the stated objectives or goal of the United States.   

It is silly of us citizens to believe that the merits of rational reasonableness will ever prompt our elected officials to act in the interest of the nation, much less their specific constituency before they act to properly feather their own bed. And surely the interest of their political party will come before the wants, needs, and requirements of us citizens. Of course there are exceptions; there are elected representatives that have epitomized the ideal traits of statesmanship. The trouble is there are too-darn-few.

The truth of the issue is that rational and reasonable has little to do with the process. And it is the process, along with statutorily compliant corruption, premeditated governmental ambiguity, the natural corruption aligned with incumbents, and the willingness of citizens to not participate or affirm their rightful obligations of citizenship.

Rational and reasonable is not a constant, not an assumptive. Read the tax code, try to understand the legislative process, audit the information the federal government posts under the flag of transparency: The application of rational and reasonable as such applies to the legislative and governing process is no longer the normative but the exception…