Rod's America

What is Wealth?

2011-02-20T08:59:00.000-08:00

What Is Wealth?

We Americans know the wealthy when we see them: They are the financial giants, the technology wizards, the sports and movie stars, and a smaller number who just inherit wealth. However, we seem to be less clear about the largest group of the “wealthy”: and it is us. OK, now don’t stop reading; I will explain what wealth really is. Wealth is everything you possess that allows you to live beyond the bare essentials of existence. I know that this definition is hard to accept, but it provides the only guide to understanding what is happening in our country today. If you are reading this blog, you are at least some extent wealthy.

Wealth does not occur, it is created. Before wealth can be shared, someone must put forth the effort to produce it. In most of the world, individuals can’t personally grow or manufacture everything they need, so we use money to swap for our needs. The industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution and the technical revolution have all increased the total amount of wealth in the world, and that wealth has generally been spread among most countries, making individuals and families wealthier. Partially through our own efforts, and partially due to historical reasons, the United States has become especially wealthy.

But times change, and our national wealth is seriously threatened. What can be done to protect and grow our wealth?

Common Sense

2011-02-19T08:10:00.000-08:00

Common knowledge consists of what we know about life on the Earth. Common knowledge can be derived from personal experience, from the group and from history. Common sense is the application of our store of knowledge to any situation requiring decision making. how we have seen life to be, what others we trust have told us about life, and what 5000 years of history have passed on to us. Common sense suggests to us how we should respond to external conditions that we have not previously experience personally. Conditions change, but people (by and large) do not. Common sense can guide us when faced with unexpected conditions; common sense can also provide an insight into how other people will react to unfamiliar circumstances.

Common sense is accumulated by participating in carnival games, buying used cars, sending money to chain letter schemes. Common sense is developed by the realization that not all people are completely honest all the time; that some (maybe too many) people simply don’t know the truth or accuracy about what they are saying. Even good, earnest, well meaning people can be completely (or partially) wrong. Common sense says that some people are crooks and thieves; others will simply take advantage of your trust for gain that is not always only about money.

Common sense is not always present when needed. People what have not accumulated a store of common sense, because they are too young, or because they have not been exposed to inherited knowledge, or because they are unaware that life is a repeating process and what is now being experienced has been experienced many times over history.

It is fairly easy to overrule common sense. Common sense might tell us that it is not wise to lend money to those who will not likely pay it back. Conversely, common sense might tell us that family and friends are more important than money, and we elect to disregard the caution about lending.

When common sense tells us that actions taken in haste are likely regretted at leisure, we often choose to ignore the warning and go with the instant. So, perhaps the difference between the wise and the disappointed is not who has common sense, but rather who pays attention to our built-in common-sense guide.

The Big Voice

2010-12-17T09:04:00.000-08:00

At one time in this country, each person had his/her own voice. This was mostly a personal, silent, voice that told us how to approach life. This voice guided us to whether to go, or stay; to work or laze. It told us which behaviors were acceptable and which were not. It advised us when to cooperate and when to stand on our own. Although fortune presented us with favor or with trouble, the voice advised us about how to cope with what man and nature had to offer.

We didn't always follow the advice offered by the voice, and even when we did, the voice wasn't always an unerring guide for success and happiness. As we progressed through life and history, our voices were modified our experiences and adapted to new environments to help us through life as America became older.

But, with each succeeding generation, we seem to losing our voice.More and more, our individual voices are being quieted by the volume by the Big Voice of "society" that is taking over the role of directing our thoughts and actions. No longer is it possible to move the free frontier of individual decision and self-determined lives.

The voice of society grows louder and more difficult to withstand or ignore.We no longer are allowed to be charitable of our own free will, but are forced to provide for others, regardless of our belief in their need or worthiness. We are not allowed to think about nature unless we think the accepted way. We can no longer make decisions about how use the benefits of our labor unless we decide as the Big Voice wishes us to. We can no longer speak our thoughts unless the thoughts have been pre-approved by the Big Voice or its delegated Nanny voices.

Of course, the Big Voice speaks on behalf of everyone, but it doesn't sound like the cooperative buzz that used to come from our neighborhoods. It appears to come down from somewhere in the political ether, and its tone is sharp and demanding.

The Big Voice speaks in words that we have heard before, but we no longer understand what he means by those words. A word like "invest," which once meant to earn a return on your money, but now means to take our money and use it as the Big Voice says. A word like "patriotic" that meant love of country now means to pay more taxes without objecting.

The Big Voice knows things that either we don't know or don't understand. It knows that the secret ballot is no longer a good thing in a democracy. It has the ability to convert sunshine and wind into a guilt-free, cost free, energy source. It knows that we are not competent to make economic decisions on our own, so it prescribes what we should buy and how much we should pay for it. The Big Voice is a powerful voice: It can cajole our worst enemies into becoming friends, just by talking. The Big Voice is seen as well as being heard. Although it generally comes from the Big White House, it often seen and heard from around the country as if transported by air.

The Nanny voices are echoes of the Big Voice. They know what is good for us and how we should behave, or else! Being echoes, they sometimes sound different, and they often disagree with the Big Voice, leaving us confused and uncertain. Oprah is a Nanny telling us what to read and think, Hollywood is a Nanny chorus telling us how to live and "activists" constantly explain that their group's ideas are valid.

Americans lived for generations thinking for themselves, listening to family, friends and neighbors; it's time to cut the power the Big and Nanny voices, and think for ourselves once more.

Where did all our money go?

2010-10-09T18:36:00.001-07:00

There you were, paying your income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, sales and gasoline taxes; property taxes, the hundreds of miscellaneous taxes; the taxes to fly; and eventually the tax to die; and you thought things were going OK. But, while you were paying in, the government was also taking out trillions in "payday" loans. Now you are stuck with an impossible bill. Where did all the money go? Let's look.

The United States is having a difficult economic time, and tax receipts have dropped considerably, while costs have risen. This is a serious problem. However, it is in no way the cause of the long term economic disaster. We imagined that our representatives were looking out for the country while we concentrated on earning a living, but we are in this mess because we allowed—sometimes encouraged or demanded—those representatives to spend money, we didn't have, for things that were not essential. There are many examples for this foolishness: here are a few examples.

The federal government provides "grants" and "matching funds" to states and communities. This is ironic for two reasons: first, the only money for these "gifts" has to be borrowed from other countries or individuals; and second, if there had been any money it would have come originally from taxes on those same states and communities! This does not seem like a real benefit. Could we do without this farce? States and communities are not the only ones to receive gifts. There are untold numbers of "subsidies" to industries, occupations, activities and groups. It is impossible to determine what the consequences to the country would be if these benefits ceased, but most likely we will need to cut them out, and live with the results.

Politicians tell us they can cut "waste" from the government. They could, because there are plenty of possibilities, but they won't unless their jobs depend on it. Take a cursory look at our vast government. The Executive Branch alone has fifteen departments, among which is the Department of Education (DOE). The individual states are responsible for educating their residents, so what exactly does DOE do? It supervises that same grant money that is borrowed from foreigners and "given" to states. The Department of Education comprises fourteen sub-agencies, including a unit of unclear function named the Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs.

The executive branch also has 63 Independent Agencies and Government Corporations. One of these is the African Development Foundation ( USADF), which "provides grants of up to $250,000 directly to under-served and marginalized community groups and enterprises." Another is the Election Assistance Commission that provides $300,000 in federal grants to fund student mock elections. One could wonder how much it costs to run the agency to give out those grants. Also, The Office of Government Ethics "exercises leadership in the executive branch to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of Government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that do occur. In partnership with executive branch agencies and departments, OGE fosters high ethical standards for employees and strengthens the public's confidence that the Government's business is conducted with impartiality and integrity." That must be a fulltime job!

The Executive branch host about 80 Boards, Commissions and Committees: one of which is
the Chief Acquisition Officers Council (CAOC), which "works closely with the Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to promote effective business practices in the acquisition system." I wonder if they helped to plan purchase the air traffic control systems' failed upgrades?

Also, the Federal Interagency Committee on Education, whose function "is to study and make recommendations for assuring effective coordination of Federal programs, policies, and administrative practices affecting education." You might assume that this is part of the Department of Education, but you would be incorrect!
There are about 1000 Federal Advisory Committees. They are supervised by the Committee Management Secretariat "to ensure that advice by the various advisory committees formed over the years is objective and accessible to the public." The government website doesn't even attempt to list the various committees. It must be difficult to supervise them if you don't know who they are.

The Executive branch also supervises four "Quasi-official agencies," including the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which "provides the analysis, training and tools that help to prevent, manage and end violent international conflicts, promote stability and professionalize the field of peacebuilding." They are getting a nice new building, so maybe now they can really get to work instituting peace.

Losing Our Voice

2010-10-07T07:29:00.001-07:00

At one time in this country, each person had his/her own voice. This was mostly a personal, silent, voice that told us how to approach life. This voice guided us to whether to go, or stay; to work or laze. It told us which behaviors were acceptable and which were not. It advised us when to cooperate and when to stand on our own. Although fortune presented us with favor or with trouble, the voice advised us about how to cope with what man and nature had to offer. We didn't always follow the advice offered by the voice, and even when we did, the voice wasn't always an unerring guide for success and happiness. As we progressed through life and history, our voices were modified our experiences and adapted to new environments to help us through life as America became older.

But, with each succeeding generation, we seem to losing our voice. More and more, our individual voices are being quieted by the volume by the Big Voice of "society" that is taking over the role of directing our thoughts and actions. No longer is it possible to move the free frontier of individual decision and self-determined lives. The voice of society grows louder and more difficult to withstand or ignore. We no longer are allowed to be charitable of our own free will, but are forced to provide for others, regardless of our belief in their need or worthiness. We are not allowed to think about nature unless we think the accepted way. We can no longer make decisions about how use the benefits of our labor unless we decide as the Big Voice wishes us to. We can no longer speak our thoughts unless the thoughts have been pre-approved by the Big Voice or its delegated Nanny voices.

Of course, the Big Voice speaks on behalf of everyone, but it doesn't sound like the cooperative buzz that used to come from our neighborhoods. It appears to come down from somewhere in the political ether, and its tone is sharp and demanding. The Big Voice speaks in words that we have heard before, but we no longer understand what he means by those words. A word like "invest," which once meant to earn a return on your money, but now means to take our money and use it as the Big Voice says. A word like "patriotic" that meant love of country now means to pay more taxes without objecting.

The Big Voice knows things that either we don't know or don't understand. It knows that the secret ballot is no longer a good thing in a democracy. It has the ability to convert sunshine and wind into a guilt-free, cost free, energy source. It knows that we are not competent to make economic decisions on our own, so it prescribes what we should buy and how much we should pay for it. The Big Voice is a powerful voice: It can cajole our worst enemies into becoming friends, just by talking. The Big Voice is seen as well as being heard. Although it generally comes from the Big White House, it often seen and heard from around the country as if transported by air.

The Nanny voices are echoes of the Big Voice. They know what is good for us and how we should behave, or else! Being echoes, they
sometimes sound different, and even they even disagree with the Big Voice, leaving us confused and uncertain. Oprah is a Nanny telling us what to read and think, Hollywood is a Nanny chorus telling us how to live and "activists" constantly explain that their group's ideas are valid.

Americans lived for generations thinking for themselves, listening to family, friends and neighbors; it's time to cut the power the Big and Nanny voices, and think for ourselves once more.

Why Congress doesn’t read the bills it votes on

2010-10-04T08:45:00.001-07:00

Our convoluted income tax laws are perfect examples our how our lawmaking system is a disaster of confusion and unnecessary expense. Let's look at why this is so.

Asked at a town hall meeting if he had read the Obama Health Care bill, Senator Max Baucus (D. Montana) replied—in essence—that he shouldn't be expected waste his time reading the final bill, because congress hired "experts" to write the final bill in "statutory" language that he could not decipher.

The obvious question is; if members can't read a bill, how do they know what is—or what isn't—in the bill? The equally obvious answer is that they don't know. This brings to mind Speaker Pelosi's; inane but apparently accurate, statement that they needed to pass the health care bill so they could learn what was in it.

How do they make laws? The proposed legislation must have originally been discussed in common English that most congressmen can understand. However, the proposed laws leave common understand behind when the congressional staff "experts" convert congressional English into statutory (legal) language. After conversion, the bills are (reportedly) too abstruse to read—but congress votes on them anyway.

After congress approves the unreadable bills, they go to the president for signature. Presumably, the president has the same readability problem, and he must either find "experts" to read it for him or— what usually happens—simply sign the bill without actually knowing what is in it. Do we see a pattern developing here?

After the president signs, he sends the new law to the appropriate federal agencies for implementation. The federal bureaucracies must hire their own "statutory experts" to translate bills into regulations for applying the law. After the regulations have been created; they must—once again—be converted into legalistic language to ensure that they are properly "understood" by the public.

Now the rest of the country gets involved. Those affected by the bureaucratic regulations might range from mom and pop businesses, to major corporations, to just ordinary citizens. The big guys employ lawyers to "interpret" the rules and deal with their requirements. Smaller businesses have to pay independent "expert" consultants for help, and the rest of us will just stumble along in ignorance until the law hits us.

Of course, there are disagreements about the accuracy of the bureaucracy's interpretation of congress's intent. Unfortunately, congress can't be relied on for clarification because congress never read the bill that it voted on! It becomes a case of:

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

As a consequence of the confusion the "experts" wrote into the law, the courts are called in to referee. There is no shortage of experts around the courts: everyone speaks statutory language. Unfortunately, the experts never seem to agree about what the wording definitively means.

Some contrasts to our present system might be appropriate: The Declaration of Independence was written in long-hand by its authors, and is readable today by ordinary people. Ancient texts; such as the Bible, have been converted from the spoken word at various places and times from Hebrew, into Greek, into Latin and into English. It has been retranslated, revised and updated; and there is still considerable disagreement over what exactly it says and means. However; when compared to our law-making, the Bible is the epitome of clarity and conciseness.

We can't afford to wait for posterity to untangle the babble of our laws: we should search out and elect representatives who think, write and read using the English language.

Moral strength to defeat barbarianism

2010-10-03T08:26:00.001-07:00

Does America have the moral strength to withstand the barbarians?

Islam is a powerful and intense religion that has little tolerance for other beliefs. It seeks to dominate or eliminate all other religions, including the "peoples of the book;" the Christians and Jews. Islam is a highly visible faith. It often has a required dress code, and public prayers are said five times a day while facing toward Mecca. The communal nature of Muslim worship makes it easy for spiritual monitors to observe behavior and maintain religious purity. As a consequence, Islam tends to have highly motivated adherents.

There are millions of Muslims, most of whom wish us no harm, and are not our enemies. Unfortunately, among the millions of peaceful Muslims, there are groups of completely immoral brutes bent on destroying anything and anyone that their warped religious zeal finds objectionable. Their brutality is guided solely by their corrupted and immoral religious code; and they are as vicious to their fellow Muslims as to unbelievers. We are under assault from this barbarian Islamist sect. This assault is not intended to defeat us militarily, but to destroy the moral fabric that holds our society together. This is a new kind of war; relying more on long-term moral resolve than on weapons and bravery. The open question is: does our society have the moral strength to fend off the attack?

Religious fervor in western culture is no match for Muslim intensity. In much of Western Europe, churches and the few surviving synagogues are largely empty. Western society has evolved into a more "civilized,"—more tolerant—culture with a wide variety of beliefs. While we Americans have not abandoned our places of worship, the strength of our moral beliefs has been diluted by our desire to "fit into" the ecumenical community of faiths. Openness may help a civil society to avoid strife, but it is not an asset when facing aggression.

Our overly tolerant moral standards are being severely tested by barbarian determination to destroy our civilization. While forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" might be laudable in civilized society, the barbarians will simply use the other cheek as an additional target. We need not sacrifice our freedom to worship— or not to worship— in the face of assault, but we must have a moral foundation that provides us the courage to repel conquest by alien barbarity. This is not a plea for supporting one faith, nor antipathy toward any other faith. Americans come in many faiths, and we will prosper, or collapse, together. But people of all faiths, — and including those of no particular faith— need to actively resist the encroachment of the debased barbarian fanatics

Much of "elite" America has followed "sophisticated" Western Europe in abandoning religion to become "secularized." Secular societies do not subscribe to any enduring, common moral code, and must make individual, ad hoc, moral decisions. With no universal set of agreed values, secular societies are unable to draw a mutually accepted "line in the sand" to defend civilization. Secularists' ethos of tolerance and diversity is admirable in civil society; but the barbarians see it as a fatal flaw to be used against us. Secular doctrine of "Live and let live" provides no meaningful guidance when the barbarians' offer is only, "live as I say—or die!"

America suffers from a denial of reality that saps our moral resilience. Our political class lacks the wisdom (or
courage) to speak factually. For fear of offending Muslim countries, our government refuses to describe Islamic barbarism as it is. This is insane: Muslim leaders are fully aware of the true situation and have no cause to be offended. The barbarians welcome our political cowardice as a sign of a feeble resolve to resist their assault. Somehow, we must retain our personal and religious freedoms, while mustering the national moral consensus to defend ourselves from the barbarian attack.

Capitalism begins with capital

2010-09-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what happens when taxes are "raised." In the case of most of our tax payers (those not already exempted from taxes or those being supported by others' taxes), if taxes are increased we will simply have less money to spend, and economic activity will (jobs, payrolls, business taxes) will decrease. So, raising taxes = decreasing economy and probably less overall tax revenue.

But for the "rich" the story is somewhat different: they do not spend all of their income each month. So, it might seem reasonable to take some additional taxes from this group so that they have less excess money laying around. But in reality, their money is not just lying around; it is being invested so that they can earn a profit. They invest in capitalism that helps our industries, home buying, job creating, health innovation,etc. in short, taking their money in taxes deprives us of funds we need to maintain our standard of living.

Government sees our money as its income, but we think it belongs to us to the maximum extent possible.