Telthorst.net

“What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” - Adam Smith

In a previous article I discussed how social-liberalism is directly contrary to liberalism in a classical sense.  We defined classical liberalism as “a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government.”  In the article, I specifically targeted social-liberalism, which seeks to increase the financial liberty of the less fortunate through by redistributing wealth of other citizens to the less fortunate, which in turn reduces the liberty of those in higher tax brackets.  This is what is known as socialism.  I have reasons for opposition to socialism, however these reasons do not include an ambivalence to the poor or the less fortunate.

The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more. - Michelle Obama

The question of social-liberalism is a question of “are we obligated to help the poor” and “what is the best way to help them?”  Although I won’t go into an argument why, I firmly believe that we do have a moral obligation to help the poor.

There is no public education in India, and 39% of the population is illiterate.[1]  Illiteracy and a lack of education in turn drastically limit what jobs an individual can perform, and what pay they will receive.  As for the second part, I believe the best way to help the poor includes education and an expectation of responsibility.  As opposed to giving people a check or food stamps, I believe in providing them with an education so that they can earn their own living.  Education enables individuals to take charge of their own destinies’ and earn their own way in the world, as opposed to standing around with an open hand, hoping the government gives them what they need.

All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. - Aristotle

A robust public education system is of vital importance in the elimination of poverty and flourishing of society.  Prisons are full of uneducated persons, the unemployed and poor are overwhelmingly the least educated.  The percentage of impoverished individuals drops off considerably as education increases.[2]  The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 68% of State prison inmates did not receive a high school diploma.[3]  There is a vicious circle of poverty preventing individuals from excelling in school and a lack of education resulting in poverty.  To say which came first is akin to the question of the chicken or the egg.  A public education system that provides a quality learning experience to all US Citizens regardless of background is vital.  However, education begins at home, which requires responsible parents who guide and hold their children accountable.

Welfare does not help individuals work harder in school, nor does it increase their responsibility.  There needs to be incentives for individuals to get off welfare and become productive members of society.  Those that do need a helping hand with food, clothing, shelter, or medicine, are best aided by private charities because of the bloat and inefficiency of the government.  It also allows citizens the liberty of voting with their dollars by supporting those charities that they believe best help others, as well as setup scholarships for education for those that need it.  This takes power away from the government and increases the liberty of the citizens.  Lower taxes allows for more discretionary income that can be directly donated to private charities, bypassing the inefficiencies of government.  A free public education system would need to be funded by taxes of some sort, however, a more educated tax based with higher income would allow for lower taxes and yet an overall greater amount of dollars that could be spent towards education.  In other words, taxing ten people one dollar will provide the same revenue as taxing two people five dollars.

There is no doubt that some individuals would use an increase in retained income resulting from lower taxes only to better their own lives, however, an increased focus on developing a culture of philanthropy, which can be promoted in school as well as in the many facets of society, will help ensure that those who have been blessed by our country will in turn help those who have been less fortunate.

In summation, as opposed to social-liberalism that involves government handouts, stimulus checks administered with inneficienty, welfare dependent citizens, and high taxes, we should focus on educating our children, providing the poor with educational opportunities, and private charities.

Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. - John Adams

1. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html [↩]
2. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/bpoveduc.html [↩]
3. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ecp.htm [↩]

Presumptive Presidential Democrat nominee Barack Obama has selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. The announcement was made early this morning via text message to supporters.  This news dashes any remaining hope Hillary Clinton supporters had that their candidate would be on the “dream ticket.”

A large reason for the selection of Senator Biden is undoubtedly to bolster Senator Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience.  Mr. Biden has served as Senator for 30 years and is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  It is noteworthy to point out that Senator Biden, when asked about Senator Obama’s lack of experience said, “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”  Senators Obama and Biden will be holding their first rally together in the Illinois Capital of Springfield, later this afternoon.

WSJ: Obama Names Sen. Joe Biden As Presidential Running Mate

Last Saturday at the Saddleback Church forum, when asked which Supreme Court Justices he would not have appointed, Senator Obama first said he would not have appointed Clarence Thomas. There is a fine Wall Street Journal Opinion, “Obama on Clarence Thomas.”

Although “race” is irrelevant in regards to the ability of an individual to competently act in a position, “race” has been an unavoidable and central issue in the current presidential election. Senator Obama’s statements should be taken in light of the fact that Justice Clarence Thomson is only the second black man to sit on the bench of the highest court in the United States, and the only black individual currently on the Supreme Court.  However, Senator Obama, dubbed by some as the “Post Racial Candidate,” stated that:

I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.

Senator Obama also states that he would not have nominated Justice Antonin Scalia because he disagrees with his views, “Although I don’t think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance.”  The article lists all of Justice Thomas’ qualifications, including working at the Missouri Attorney General’s office, serving as an Assistant Secretary of Education, running the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sitting for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court.  If you watch the video where Sen. Obama is making this statement, he starts to say, “I don’t think that he was an ex,” and then stops.  It sounds like Sen. Obama started to state that, “I don’t think that he was an experienced…” this is conjecture of course, yet very reasonable conjecture.  But it certainly sounds like Sen. Obama was going to critique Justice Thomas’s supposed lack of experience as a jurist.

Setting aside the face that Justice Thomson is actually quite experienced, Barack Obama was wise not to directly critique Justice Thomson’s lack experience, lest someone critique Senator Obama’s lack of experience. But it is a good idea to look at Senator Obama’s career and experience level.

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004, and was sworn in on January 4th, 2005. Obama has been a U.S. Senator from 2005 to the present.[1]  Since then he has 143 days of experience in the Senate.  The 143 days of experience being when Senate was actually in session and working.

The Illinois Senator has a J.D. from Harvard Law school, he graduated magna cum laude, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review then President of the Harvard Law Review.  Senator Obama is unquestionably a very intelligent individual.  His background unquestionably qualifies him to disagree with Justice Thomson’s interpretation of the Constitution.  However, to call Justice Thomas a weak jurist is an unfounded allegation.  The WSJ Opinion: “Obama on Clarence Thomas,” articulates this point quite well. For the full Saddleback Forum Coverage, visit: trevinwax.com.

1. Wikipedia.org: Barack Obama, Early life and career [↩]

Modern liberalism in the United States, also referred to as American liberalism, is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberty.

If I had never heard the word “liberal” and I was told that a liberal is a person that seeks to maximize individual liberty, I would consider myself a liberal.  However, liberalism in the United States has been mixed with radical social progressivism and social liberalism, which in many ways are directly contrary to liberty.[1]  However, I do still consider myself a liberal under the definition of classical liberalism, which is according to wikipedia, “a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government.”

Traditionally, the democrat party has been considered “liberal.” However, the banning of weapons, high tax rates, killing select members of our society, and a glut of government programs and services, main tenets of the democrat platform, are actually quite limiting of individual freedom.  One of the main elements of modern liberalism, social liberalism, which in contrast to maximizing individual liberty, is in fact quite fascist leaning in practice. Nazism, (in german Nationalsozialismus) is translated to National Socialism. Facism is defined as a very strong central government with individual liberties being subordinate to the interests of the state; and socialist policies help to subordinate individual liberties and strengthen the government.

Continue Reading…

1. Certain issues regarding social progressivism, specifically women’s rights and “racial” equality, are of course great goods. [↩]

Two new articles regarding Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama’s economic plans, specifically regarding taxes, have been posted on WSJ.com. “Obamanomics Clarified” is a follow up to “Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession.” The other opinion article is simply called “The Obama Tax Plan“. The authors of the latter article are obviously biased for Senator Obama, and use the cliché pop-phrase that “John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term,” that is straight out of the Obama propaganda field manual.

Having said that, some of the Illinois Senator’s tax plans are not as radical as I understood them to be. Although I’m largely opposed to taxation, his tax policies on income, federal gains, dividends, and estate taxes, seem relatively reasonable. For those persons making less than $250,000, there won’t be an increase to capital gains taxes or dividends taxes, and the estate tax would be repealed for estates valued at less than $7 million. Thus depending on your tax bracket, you probably won’t be affected if his plan was implemented as he has presented it. This is assuming Senator Obama does actually implement his plans if elected.

Mr. Boskin, a professor of Economics at Stanford, still maintains even in his revised article that:

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

Sen. Obama defines middle class, on the high end, as those households earning less than $250,000. He is obviously playing to the middle class, and is willing to shift more of the burden of taxation onto those making more than $250,000. There are more people making less than $250,000 than people making over that amount, so Sen. Obama is attempting to go after the demographic that will provide the most votes. There is some rationale behind taxing the “rich” at higher rates, as they have benefited the most from the economic system of the United States, however, part of this writer thinks it’s wrong to punish individuals for being successful.

On Friday August 4th Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi adjourned Congress, dimmed the lights, shut of the microphones, and turned off C-Span’s cameras. According to an ABC News Article: “Democrats abruptly adjourned the House until September 8 without giving them [House Republicans] a chance to speak on the floor about their energy plan, which includes exploring for oil in ANWR and more off-shore drilling,” [brackets added].

However, 25-30 house Republicans have stayed in the now dimly lit chamber, discussing what America can do to develop energy independence. Speaker of the House Pelosi, “issued a statement on Monday saying, ‘This Republican hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to reduce the price at the pump and promote energy independence.’” Serious debate, apparently, includes discussing inflating your tires and getting a tune-up. This approach to energy independence, recently suggested by Senator Barack Obama, as opposed to drilling, is essentially telling ordinary citizens to pound sand, unless of course you are one of the people that drives around with flat tires.

If you think that Congress should return from vacation and reconvene to do something about high gasoline prices, so that the voting class, regular Americans like you and me, can afford to go on vacation, I encourage you to contact the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, using this form. If have already contacted her, here is what I wrote:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
Please call congress back in session. Millions of ordinary Americans are seriously hurt by high gasoline prices. Drilling domestically off-shore and in ANWR will help to reduce gasoline prices now. It doesn’t matter if we won’t see any of the oil immediately, the price of oil today is also based on how much oil speculators believe will be available in the future. If speculators believe that there will be a greater supply of oil in the future, the price will drop today. Which is why drilling for oil domestically now will help to lower the price immediately, even if we don’t see any of the oil for a number of years.

Drilling will also ensure that future generations have a source of energy while we develop renewable resources. Please call congress back in session so that, to use your words, you can continue, “the serious debate we must have to reduce the price at the pump and promote energy independence.” Even better than serious debate would be solutions to our energy problem, so that ordinary Americans can go on vacation as well.

Sincerely,
John Telthorst
Telthorst.net

Feel free to use my words, if you wish, in your own message. I also strongly encourage you to contact your representatives as well on the issue of Energy Independence, and demand answers and results, not promises. You can follow this link to contact your House Representative. You can also use this link to contact your Senator (located in a drop down menu by state in the upper right hand corner).

The Democrat Controlled Congress, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have a record low approval rating at 14% according to a July 16 Gallup Poll. This rating is exactly half the approval rating of President Bush as of a May 8 Gallup Poll.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, among other prominent politicians, have continually lambasted President George W. Bush. Recently Pelosi went so far as to call the current President of the United States a “total failure.” Using logic and some recent Gallup polls, the American people don’t believe that Nancy Pelosi or congress are winners either. Consider, if Pelosi is the leader of Congress, and Bush has twice the approval rating of congress, and Bush is a “total failure” then that would make Pelosi and her Congress a total failure as well, twice.