Freedom, Liberty and Tolerance

So many politicians these days love to metaphorically wrap themselves in the American flag, tout Constitutional principles and yet find new and innovative ways to alienate the 50% (+/- 5%) that chose not to vote for them. Our country is at a scary crossroads. We have borrowed to the hilt. Our entitlement programs are on the verge of insolvency. And the rhetoric is creating a greater schism in our already divided political divide. We argue the virtues of increasing taxes for the wealthy. We argue the virtues of reducing entitlements.

On the social side of the equation, we have majorities persecuting minorities, and minorities persecuting majorities. We argue the definition of marriage and debate limiting marriage to a defined majority. We argue whether companies owned by a certain gender or certain ethnicities get to win work over companies owned by the other gender or another ethnicity. And by doing so, we only create animosity.

And so, we have these schisms. We are socially divided, economically divided and because of that, I see a future of 50/50 split vote elections followed by gridlock and minimal change. We have on the one hand, a side seeking the vote of the economic freedom seekers and social conservatives. On the other hand, a side seeking the vote of government solution fans and social freedom advocates. And with both hands full of these two parties, I feel empty and without a viable choice that seeks all Freedom, all Liberty and unwavering Tolerance.

Critics of democracies often cite that the fall of democracy comes when the majority determines that they can "vote away" the rights of the minority. My fear is that the critics of democracy are about to be proven right. But in writing these words, I have to remind myself that we are not living in a democracy, per se. We are living in a Democratic Constitutional Republic. And the premise (although all too frequently forgotten) is that elections are democratic, but law and policy are to be Constitutional. And at its core, our Constitution is about protecting each and every individual from persecution, persecution from the government and from majorities that want to take away freedoms, liberties and property.

So, I question the integrity of our two large party platforms. Aren't parties by their very nature collectivist? And isn't collectivist thought the antithesis of our Constitution? We have created a classic we/they, us/them type of environment that our forefathers sought to prevent. Our elected leaders took oaths to uphold the Constitution, yet I feel it is the very parties that these elected leaders represent that have held the Constitution in such low regard.

When I hear someone say that only people who are born with an attraction to the opposite sex ought to be legally allowed to marry, I mourn for those who aren't born that way. When I hear people say that we should persecute the higher wage earners, thereby punishing the very people they employ, I mourn for those who hear that message and become disincented to succeed. When I hear people say that we should allow pat downs, wiretapping and search and seizure without warrant in the name of homeland security, I mourn for those who will never know the very freedoms and liberties we are claiming these activities preserve.

The question, in my mind, is rather simple. Are you, or are you not for freedom and liberty? If you are, then tolerance needs to be the third part of the equation. One is a hypocrite if they are for economic freedoms yet choose to persecute others for their social beliefs. And similarly, those who seek social freedoms yet want to force the economically successful to pay for things they don't support are as hypocritical as their aforementioned competition.

I have a novel concept. How about we defend the beliefs, liberties, freedoms and properties of every individual? Whether they be social liberties or economic ones. Whether it be earned property or inherited. Whether they be common beliefs or rare ones. Let's defend them all. Let's advocate for the individual.

Whenever one of our country's majorities turns its power against a minority, and worse, does so within the framework of unconstitutional law, we are heading for disaster. The question of whether to raise taxes on the wealthy is a moot one if we adhere to the principle of protecting every individual's property equally. The question of whether or not to legalize gay marriage is a moot one if we adhere to the principle of allowing every person the same rights as every one else. The question of wiretapping and search/seizure without a warrant is a moot one if we adhere to the principle of freedom and presumed innocence.

Is our country better when majorities persecute minorities? History has proven it is not.

I would venture to guess that most persons get most upset and angry when they feel their rights are being disrespected. And I would venture to guess that many in this country are upset and angry at today's state of affairs. Perhaps it is because a particular right that is most important to them is being challenged. Some may be most upset about their blocked right to marry. Some may be most upset about being forced to buy something against their will. Others may be most upset about inconsistent tax rates that punish the successful in a disproportionate way, and force them to pay for things they don't support. And still others may be most upset about the inability to smoke a plant they grew in their own home. The list can go on and on. Perhaps, just perhaps, a solution to the angst, the passion and divisiveness in our country is tolerance.

Some have referred to this philosophy as "Live and Let Live". Any chance of our country living by that concept any time soon?

What do stacks of shoes and building permits have in common?

It was the summer of 1989. I had just finished my freshman year at Boston College, and was determined to get a job quickly so that I could maximize income over the summer to have spending money for my sophomore year. I followed the "path of least resistance". Instead of doing a quick job search to find the best fit, I followed a friend who had done the quick job search and got a "temp" job at a shoe factory in a neighboring town. It's interesting to me that I'm even writing about the job. You see, I worked there for less than a week. I was one of a select few people who were temporary workers there. We were the summer help, the additional labor. Most of the folks who worked there held the jobs as full-time jobs. Many of them smoked, taking advantage of the "smoke'em if you got'em" breaks many factories offer.

Anyhow, my tenure there was short. Aside from the boring nature of the job, organizing and stacking shoe boxes, styles and sizes, I ended up getting an offer for another temporary job at a records management company. It was another "path of least resistance opportunity" through my brother's job. But prior to leaving, I got a lesson from some of the full-time workers there.

It was my first day, and the floor supervisor asked me to stack shoe boxes by style and size. They were in a misfit pile of enormous size. At first glance, I would have never imagined that I'd be able to do it in a day, let alone less than a day. However after diving in and getting started, the job of organizing this pile was actually quite simple. Separate by style first, then organize each style by size. And although the original pile was gigantic, shoe boxes by themselves are pretty large, so putting a dent into the pile was rather rapid. Anyhow, I finished before lunch. I searched around for the floor supervisor, looking everywhere for him. I asked people who were doing similar exercises as I was asked to do, and they had no idea where he was. I kept looking. Guiltily, I didn't want to stand idle, so I kept looking. I finally found him, and he told me he'd meet me by my station just after lunch. So, he met me there. He was a bit surprised I had finished, and assigned me to another task for the afternoon.

Then, it happened. I was "greeted" by some of the full-time resources. They were none too pleased that I had finished my task in the a.m., letting me know that next time, it should take me a couple of days. And they weren't giving me an "estimate". They were telling me how long it should take. It was most definitely a threat. At the age of 19, this was the first time I encountered job protectionism, people fabricating how much effort was required to complete work in order to justify their position. If everyone was as efficient as I was that morning, they'd need fewer workers, and some might lose their jobs. Of course, if the company had excess bandwidth, maybe they wouldn't fire people. Maybe they'd make more shoes, have more supply and prices would be reduced for consumers. Then again, these guys didn't think that way. And so, feeling as though my efforts to streamline, improve and complete tasks were underappreciated, I moved on and left the factory behind.

This past week, I had the privilege of experiencing this phenomenon again. Although construction is way down in Chicago, the Building Department has actually gotten slower in their ability to produce permits. Major jobs (including my own) sit on hold while "project managers" reviewing the applications intentionally delay the completion of the review so their desks may appear busy. You see, if they finished their reviews as soon as possible, they would have no backlog. And if they have no backlog, they fear that they may get let go. So, my permit sat for 35 calendar days in "final" review status. The remaining task? Check a box and print the permit. That's it. And so, I went into City Hall, spoke to a manager, who had someone check the box and print the permit. I have my permit now. And my tax dollars continue to pay for the Building Department's project managers to sit idle.

Makes me want to put on a new pair of shoes.

We The Persons

I don't like the word "people". Is it singular or plural? I think no matter the context, the word "people" never aptly describes the individual persons comprised within itself. "On behalf of the American people...the American people want this...the American people want that...etc.". Since I rarely feel as though my view is represented when the word "people" is used, I've grown a distaste for it. I'd like to propose that we try to speak without using it anymore.

As you can imagine, eliminating the use of the word "people" would have a strange effect. It might even change the way we hear rhetoric. If an elected official said, "we did this on behalf of the American Persons", our inclination would be to ask them to qualify that statement. "Which persons? ALL persons? Or was it only for the persons who voted for you?". The past couple of years have gotten extremely divisive in this country. The rhetoric has been extreme. I've heard passionate members of both houses of Congress from both major political parties say that "the American people want this bill" and others simultaneously say "the American people do NOT want this bill". Is one right? Is one wrong? The answer? They are both right and they are both wrong. There are many American persons who want the bill and many American persons who don't. But maybe an interesting omission from the English dictionary (i.e. the word "people") would create a sudden inclusion of qualifiers from elected officials so that they can explicitly state which persons about whom they are speaking. We would react, "which American persons want this bill?" and "which American persons do not?". We'd force them to answer. We'd force them to qualify it.

I've written before in this space that our country's elected officials have gotten away from the concept of representing ALL of their constituents and have moved towards representing only those constituents who voted for them (or who share their beliefs). So, we go from a 51 - 49 win one year where the winner tries to cater to the 51% who voted for them, followed by a 49 - 51 loss two years later. And throughout the past few decades, favorability for government has only decreased, despite the "political victories" that occur in between. Perhaps it is because the elected officials think that receiving 51% or 58% or whatever percent they received constitutes the right to neglect the views and opinions of all those people whose vote went elsewhere. I'd like to think that someday, someone will view themselves as the representative of all their constituents.

I think of the government as a giant checking account. ALL taxpayers (Note: From a Federal Tax standpoint, this is about 53% of American persons) make deposits into this giant checking account. Our elected officials are the "signors" on the account. They are the only ones authorized to write checks. They have to pay for themselves, their staff, their travel expenses, etc. Don't forget all the agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc. After they are all paid, they then write checks for government programs, including entitlements, endowments, etc. So again, taxpayers make deposits. Government officials make withdrawals/write checks. And as of this writing, our elected officials from both major parties have written enough checks to ring up a debt to the tune of nearly $13 trillion dollars.

So, by catering to their supporters and condoning acts such as earmarks, renegade borrowing and printing money, our elected officials will tell you that the spending that has occurred has been "on behalf of the American people". But I say, "Not this person!". I'd like our elected officials to take consideration of every bill before they vote and ask themselves the question, "The price of this bill comes at whose expense?". The answer would be persons who are likely against the bill. And if a bill has a cost to a group of persons who do not benefit from it, and a group of beneficiaries who do not pay for it, it is legalized theft. So, a natural question would be, "what bills would ever pass this test?". And that is my point entirely. Government spending ought to occur when the price comes at "every person's expense" and reaps benefits for "every person". If our elected officials had governed this way and better yet, if the future elected officials resume this practice, the result would be the smaller, less bureaucratic government our founding fathers created. A novel concept, indeed.

A friend of mine and I talked the other day about a concept of optional taxation. I believe many persons would like to be able to "opt in" to taxation for certain government programs. If you opt in, you pay taxes marked for the program and when needed, you are entitled to utilize the program in question. If you opt out, you don't pay those particular taxes and you are not eligible to receive the benefit. Persons planning to raise a family might opt in to pay taxes for public education. Persons not planning on raising a family might opt out. Persons wanting to save their own retirement money throughout their career might opt out of Social Security. Others might not want to bother with the retirement planning and may want to opt in. The concept is an interesting one, because it would allow each and every person to choose how their deposits into the big checking account get spent, and would even allow each person to choose how large their deposits are. In this scenario, each and every person would be happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Good programs would get the support they need. Bad programs would go to the wayside.

I'd be able to shop for what I want, pay for what I want and opt not to buy things I find unnecessary. Sounds like the free enterprise system to me. We should try that sometime. My suspicion is that our elected officials would tell me that this "is not good for the American people". Well, it's good for this American person.

Common Census

I, like most Americans, completed my 2010 census. As I checked off the two major elements of the census, gender and nationality (for me, male and white), I thought about the roots of the census, how it started, why we have it, etc. Many are not aware of the fact that the United States Constitution calls for the census every 10 years. It is heartening to know that there are still aspects of the United States Constitution that are actually still followed and respected.

On this monumental weekend, on which our country will in all likelihood have a newly approved Health Care bill and further violate the United States Constitution by mandating that all people buy something, I thought I would take some points under consideration, and think about other common sense approaches to Constitution violation.

First off all, did everyone enjoy seeing the entire cast of the movies "Best In Show" and "Waiting for Guffman" in Super Bowl ads for the census? Yep. Super Bowl ads. The most expensive 30-second spots per year, and the CENSUS spent our tax dollars using one of the most famous ensemble casts in Hollywood to produce them.

Another good one is embedded in the new Health Care bill. As mentioned above, the new bill includes a mandate that all individuals must purchase health insurance. I do have to say, it is a noble idea, a goal that everyone would have access to quality care and the means to pay for it. But let me ask this, why would Warren Buffett need health insurance? He is one of the most wealthy people in our country. He already has access to quality care and the means to pay for it. So, we are going to take it a step further and REQUIRE that he pay for insurance? Bill Gates? "Sorry sir, even though you are worth umpteen billion dollars, we are requiring that you buy health insurance." Another common sense approach to violating the Constitution.

I don't have dental insurance, because I don't think it's worth it to pay the premiums, given that I have the means to pay for dental emergencies out of pocket if they happen. I'm no Warren Buffet and I'm no Bill Gates. I want (and am happy I have) health insurance. But in their income bracket, isn't it likely that it's not worth it to them to have health insurance? Sorry gentlemen, sign here and buy something you don't need.

When 95% of our population pays for 100% of all entitlement programs, it may be sustainable. When 90% of our population pays for them, it becomes less sustainable. I think all would agree that there will be a point in time when the lower end of that 90% will become less motivated to pay for the 91st percent. When will it end? When 85% pay for all of them? 60% paying for them? When will the people who work, earn and have their taxes increase to pay for the entitlement programs they don't intend to use decide to stop working? We'll see.

I know I'm less motivated today. I will have bad news to deliver at work this Monday. Our medical expenses will be increasing. For those that don't have strong math skills, that means that salaries will have to decrease OR our workforce will need to shrink. What do we get? Voila! More people on entitlement programs. And these were people who were gainfully employed, paying taxes and contributing positively to our country's GDP. Not anymore.

Given the abject failures of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it's common sense to create yet another government entitlement, right? So all kidding aside, what is the motivation? Is it the altruistic "get coverage for everybody" concern? I hope that's the case. Unfortunately, I am jaded. It is my belief that if one of the parties can successfully increase the number of people on entitlement programs that the party supports to a majority, then they've created a monarchy. Handcuff people to the entitlement and say "vote for me, I'll keep your entitlement".

Gone are the days of motivating people to earn what they get. Here to stay are the days of motivating people to take what they give you.

Massachusetts Brown Out

Just six short months ago, during one of my typical rants on hypocritical government practices, I focused in on Massachusetts, and its vacant Senate seat. (See older blog here.) As you may recall, Massachusetts' legislature had previously voted to take away the governor's constitutional right to select a replacement for open US Senate seats. This was done in 2004, when Sen. John Kerry was leading the polls in that year's presidential election and the Massachusetts' governor at the time was a Republican, Mitt Romney. So, in 2009, when Sen. Ted Kennedy died, the very same Massachusetts legislature overturned that vote and returned the power to the governor, Democrat Deval Patrick. How convenient. FYI, this fact got very little press. I think the fact that my blog has mentioned it twice is two more times than most of the leading news bureaus.

Hold the phone. Scott Brown? Republican Scott Brown? Taking the seat once held by Ted Kennedy? You have got to be kidding me.

I will tell you, I did not see this coming. Sure, in the last week leading up to the special election, when the polls were telling me it was possible, I tuned in. But prior to that? No way. THE MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE UNION ELECTED A REPUBLICAN WHO CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION'S AGENDA!!!

But not so fast. I am so grateful that our elected officials are smarter than we are. Despite the outcome of the election, and despite the fact that exit polls showed that BY FAR, the leading reason for the election's outcome was based on people's opposition to the Healthcare Plans approved in the House and Senate, our leaders have concluded otherwise. Again, I say, thank goodness we have elected officials smarter than the American people. They say the reason why people are against the plans is because they didn't approve of the process. A HA! That's what it is! They didn't like the process! Gotcha!

Perhaps, just possibly, is it remotely possible that the people who voted in Massachusetts were smart enough to know what was in the plans? Is it remotely possible? And perhaps, just possibly, that people might not have liked them?

If you can humor me just for a moment, and consider the ever-so-remote possibility that the same electoral community who elected Ted Kennedy senator for 47 years might have known what was in these plans AND DIDN'T LIKE THEM, how best to respond to the people?

Well, our current administration says, "they'll like these plans once we pass them, they just aren't happy with the process". Got it. Thank you for basically letting me know that you are smarter than I am. So, if CSPAN had broadcast the healthcare negotiations as Candidate Obama had promised, the American people would be cool with the deals Louisiana and Nebraska got. Because you see, the plans are well-liked. It was just the process that was the problem. And thank goodness the unions are exempt from "cadillac taxes" on their "cadillac plans". But if you have the SAME EXACT PLAN and you are NOT in a union? Taxes come your way! Yes, Mr. President. You are right. We LOVE these plans. We just didn't like the process. Thank goodness you are here to explain our views for us. I am so grateful to have you.

I am going to let my employees know that I am going to take some of their vacation time and give it to people who are not working. Essentially, that's what the health plans will cause me to do. As a small business owner who would get clobbered with new taxes to pay for these new plans, I would need to reduce pay of my employees (which I would do through no increases, reduced vacation time, etc.). They won't be happy with it. But thank you, Mr. President, for the example you have set for me. I'll let them know that they like the plan, but that they didn't like the process.

Attacking The 4th Incentive

There are hundreds of polls and dozens of "top 10" lists that attempt to convey the things that motivate people to work. There are many nuances, and various levels of granularity. But from these polls and lists, there are an obvious Top 3, followed by several other less critical ones, but powerful motivators nonetheless. Behold, the Top 3 Motivators to Work:

1. Pay The Mortgage
2. Spending Money
3. Health Benefits

Not surprising, right? These are probably the reasons why many of you go to work. These are well-ingrained, culturally-inherent motivators. Think about it. If someone asks you, "why do you work?", these top three get rattled off pretty quickly. But something is changing. It's slow, and it's methodical, but something is changing. Let me pose the question a different way, with a bit more specificity, "why do you work, when everyone else who works can take care of those three things for you?".

In the past 11 months, the current administration has created a program to pay your mortgage for you if you get a little bit over your head. They've extended Unemployment Benefit durations in 13 week chunks in repeated fashion, and our Congress will in all likelihood be passing a National Health Care bill that will cover people who currently don't have coverage. So, there you have it. Why work when everyone else that works will take care of these things for you?

I grew up in a family where work ethic was king. My grandfather spoke with great pride when he described the three jobs he had (at once). From his 4 a.m. alarm to his midnight bedtime, he worked to do the following: 1) pay the mortgage, 2) have spending money to save some and provide essentials for his family and 3) to provide health insurance for his family. I wonder what he would think if he was alive today. Not to dovetail too far into any one of these motivators, but do people even save like they used to, now that Social Security is in place (which, by the way is under water, broke, insolvent and destined for failure in the next 20 years)?

OK. This is depressing. Let's focus on what we can do next, right? Well, if the recent past is prologue, the best way to address these issues is to attack the 4th biggest incentive, right? I mean, if we are trying to completely motivate people to stay home and not work, we might need to attack the 4th biggest incentive for working. What's that? Socialization in the Workplace. After the obvious financial incentives to work, people strive to establish social relationships through work. People enjoy the knowledge stimulation and relationships they establish with like-minded co-workers. So, what can we do?

My suspicion is that soon after we create the world's first successful National Health Care program, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will turn their attention to the 4th Incentive. I am assuming that we will see a new bill in Congress to address the creation of Conferences, Meetings, and "Work Space" for those who don't work. I mean, how can we discriminate against them, right? If everyone else gets to attend meetings and conferences and such, why shouldn't they? Think about it. This is great. We'll poll all people who don't work to find their interests. We'll take people with an interest in Finance for example, and break them up into groups of 10, and set up meetings for each group to review fictitious General Ledgers, Balance Sheets and Income Statements. We'll give them software to perform edits, create graphs and charts, and then they can present to other groups with their findings. Maybe we can come up with some funding to send people on "business travel" to conferences in cool locations. I think we can call the program, Business for the Unemployed Relief Program (BURP).

So, once we completely eliminate every incentive to excel in the workplace (i.e. increase taxes for those who excel the most, continue to take the fruits of the labor from those who labor, to pay for those who refuse to labor, etc.), what will be next? Maybe we'll be able to to print more money and just pay everyone the same amount to do nothing.

Massachusetts Flip Flop

Five years ago, Massachusetts had the very interesting prospect of having a Republican governor (Mitt Romney) be given the authority to name a replacement for the US Senate Seat occupied by then Presidential candidate John Kerry if Senator Kerry were to win the election. You see, Massachusetts, like many states, had a Constitution that empowered the sitting governor to name a successor to a US Senate seat if said seat were to become vacant. Well, as you likely already know, the Massachusetts legislature is seated with a super Democratic majority. They quickly took the Constitution into their own hands, and passed an amendment revoking that power from the governor, and turning it to the people through a Special Election. Let that sink in. The governor no longer has the power to appoint someone to an open US Senate seat. The people will now do so through a Special Election, within 5 months of the seat becoming open.

Well, as the story went in 2004, Senator Kerry remains a Senator. Mitt Romney stepped down as governor and pursued a presidential run himself in 2008. The governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, Deval Patrick. And now, in August of 2009, our country lost one of its long-standing leaders and Senators, Edward M. Kennedy. And per the amendment passed in 2004, a Special Election will need to occur. See above. A seat is now open. Within 5 months, an election will occur where the people will vote to name the successor. Again, this was voted in by the Democrats in 2004, "to empower the people to utilize their right to vote".

But hang on. Don't go so fast. The Massachusetts governor is now a Democrat. And there is some crucial legislature about to pass through the chambers of Congress in Washington (think Healthcare). The Democrats could use that seat now. Senator Kennedy's seat will remain unfilled for several months until the Special Election can occur, passed into law by the Democrats just five years earlier. But now, since the Democrats will be the impacted party, a call for swift legislative action is being made to reverse that law and to re-empower the governor to appoint someone to the seat. And by the time I write my next entry, I suspect it will be passed into law and we will have a new US Senator from Massachusetts. (Let's hope Governor Patrick doesn't pull a Blagojevich on us. But I don't think he will. There is so much integrity in Massachusetts politics for something like that to occur. I mean, who would manipulate law with backdoor deals and such?)

I am not a fan of Republicans. And I am not a fan of Democrats. True stories, like the one above, can be told and re-told over and over again about both of these parties. I ask you this, is this why we elected these people to office? Did we ask them to tear up, and then tape back up our Constitutions? To pick and choose which elements they like, and to discard the elements they don't? To flip flop based on who is in office, who has the majority, who has the most at stake? And to do it under the guise of "this is what Teddy wanted as a dying wish"? Using a man's death to swindle deals is disturbing, if you ask me.

On whichever side of the aisle you reside (or if you are like me, you don't pay too much attention to aisles, but rather to the individuals standing in the chamber), I hope this infuriates you. I hope it disgusts you enough to seek true change. Our president campaigned and got elected on a premise of "change". In 2004, Massachusetts changed law to suit the needs of an elected majority, NOT the needs of all individuals, as all our constitutions propose. And now, in 2009, our President supports another change, yet again to suit the needs of an elected majority (his majority), NOT the needs of all individuals. Until we elect officials that strive to represent 100% of their constituency, and not just the 40something% that got them elected, we will continue to see stories like the one above.

Change. Yes, we can. Hope. Change is coming. Yeah, right.