Gone to socialists, every one.
In our media saturated society anyone might think we are going through a major revival of free market capitalism. It is the Tea Party and Republican Party verbal remedy for all that ails American society.
Socialism and even just ordinary good government are anathema. You would think the government owns Walmart or General Electric, or the entire S&P 500, given the way the political candidates carry on. Even government regulations, like not selling poisoned food, are decried as socialistic.
The entire business community of America, and the workers who follow their leadership, claims to be against socialism. The capitalist spirit remains unbroken and ready to rumble despite decades of New Deal stimulus, Great Society redistributions and even ObamaCare.
Then there is reality. You remember reality. It is what videos are sometimes made from. It is what you have to drive through to get to work in the morning, if you have a job.
There is a litmus test. There is a way to see whether people with money, which is too say capitalists large and capitalists small, stand by their rhetoric.
Real capitalists put capital to work in business. On a large scale this is easy to quantify: most of America's capital at work in business can be measured in the stock market. Every public stock has a value called its market capitalization, and you can add all that capital up to see what the free market capitalists are doing business with.
Phony capitalists put their capital in government bonds. There really is nothing in our society more socialistic that a Treasury bill or bond. To buy a bond is to turn ones back on capitalism and free markets. To buy a bond is to believe that the federal government's ability to tax is sounder economics than a bet on a business making profits.
In case you have not been following the stock and bond markets, let me catch you up to date.
The stock market has been largely abandoned by investors. That happened in late 2008. There are still a few brave capitalists out there, and even some individual investors, but the market has been kept afloat, to the extent that it is afloat, by stock buy backs. That is, the companies are, by and large, quite profitable, and they use much of the cash they generate to buy their own stock, allowing the socialists to get out of their investment in capitalism.
The bond market, on the other hand, is stuffed to the gills with the money accumulated by socialist investors, mainly from selling stocks. These former capitalists love the taxing power of the government, which guarantees the safety of their "investment." They are happy to lend money to a money-losing government rather than risk it on money-making public companies.
It is time for capitalists to put a stop to this hypocritical behavior.
It is time for all Republican candidates to take a new pledge:
"I pledge all of my capital is invested in the stock market or private investments, and I have no capital invested in the socialist government bond market, and never will."
In fact, all Republicans should make that pledge and take action that aligns their investments with their capitalist rhetoric.
When will they ever learn?
Disclaimer: William P. Meyers has a retirement fund that is 100% in stocks and owns no government bonds.
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Democracy, Federalism and the Tea Party Constitution
The Tea Party may be able to win the occasional Republican Party primary, but its views are way out of the mainstream. People like to complain, and may join the complaining of anyone who whines about the economy and government these days, but most people will reject Tea Party solutions to our problems. On the other hand the mainstream has been a big failure; Tea Party ideas are worth examining, even if we ultimately reject them.
The Tea Party is diverse; I don't mean to say that they all think alike on every issue by making some generalizations here. However, I believe it is fair to say that in general they are for low taxes, a decreased role for federal government, and a rolling back of the U.S. Constitution to its fundamentalist form, still including its first ten amendments. They also favor a republican form of government over democracy.
I find it strange that they are so in love with the U.S. Constitution and act as if it was written by their God, however they imagine that entity. Historical reality clearly indicates that the Tea Party folk of the Constitutional Convention era were in favor of keeping the Articles of Confederation, and with good reason. They did not like taxes imposed on them for other people's benefit either.
Who is a conservative? The word conservative is a tricky word to use in the era between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the imposition of the Constitution upon the early peoples of the United States of America. Conservatives in 1776 could be defined as those who wanted to remain a set of colonies of England; the signers of the Declaration of Independence were radicals. Yet most of the 1776 leaders were economic conservatives within their communities. Were those who wrote the Constitution radical because they broke with those who wanted to keep the Articles (including Patrick Henry), or were they conservative men who felt that radicals were getting the upper hand under the Articles and in their respective sovereign States? I favor the later interpretation, but when using labels like conservative, one has to know what era one is talking about.
Now, take taxes. It is true that by going back to the original Constitution the Federal Government would lose its ability to collect income taxes (granted in the XVI Amendment). But that does not mean the government would collect or spend less money. It certainly would not stop the military industrial complex. Taxes could be raised by a Congress that "shall have the power to collect Taxes, Posts, Duties and Excises" (Article I, Section 8) constrained only by the phrase "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census." (Article 1, Section 9). Instead of paying income tax, you would pay more for goods and services. So for low federal taxing power you need to go back to the Articles.
Now consider the idea that the Constitution was explicitly undemocratic. It was not written by the people themselves, so it is not surprising that its democratic elements are minimal. The various states were, on the whole, more democratic in structure. The Constitution was largely written because of concerns that the people of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were pushing too hard for democracy and justice for all.
Yet the Federal Government under the original Constitution had strong democratic elements. Those elements were shored up by the growing idea that all people really are created equal and should have an equal say in government. The trend towards perfecting what was mere propaganda in the Declaration of Independence would lead to a lessening of the republican Constitutional elements, and increasing of the democratic elements, over the next two centuries.
First, the House of Representatives "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Chosen by the people. That is democracy, especially when you admit that every human is a member of the people, not just property-owning white males.
Second, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;" note they did not give this, the taxing power, to the Senate or President or Courts. That is because the historical experience then, as now, is that it is the fat cats who want to raise taxes to enrich themselves. To keep taxes low for most people it is safer to keep that power in the democratically elected lower house of Congress. It isn't fool proof, but it is better than allowing the Senate to run amok with that power.
But no constitutional framework can, in and of itself, guarantee justice and prosperity. People can, and some will, act badly within any system. We reached a point in after 2000 where business and political ethics just about completely disintegrated in the United States. People where so angry at a few dozen crazy Islamic militants that they took their eyes off what was happening in the U.S. We can't all be governing all the time; we need elected officials. But the people need to keep a close watch on their officials and the jackals (mostly corporate lobbyists) who beguile them.
The Tea Party is diverse; I don't mean to say that they all think alike on every issue by making some generalizations here. However, I believe it is fair to say that in general they are for low taxes, a decreased role for federal government, and a rolling back of the U.S. Constitution to its fundamentalist form, still including its first ten amendments. They also favor a republican form of government over democracy.
I find it strange that they are so in love with the U.S. Constitution and act as if it was written by their God, however they imagine that entity. Historical reality clearly indicates that the Tea Party folk of the Constitutional Convention era were in favor of keeping the Articles of Confederation, and with good reason. They did not like taxes imposed on them for other people's benefit either.
Who is a conservative? The word conservative is a tricky word to use in the era between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the imposition of the Constitution upon the early peoples of the United States of America. Conservatives in 1776 could be defined as those who wanted to remain a set of colonies of England; the signers of the Declaration of Independence were radicals. Yet most of the 1776 leaders were economic conservatives within their communities. Were those who wrote the Constitution radical because they broke with those who wanted to keep the Articles (including Patrick Henry), or were they conservative men who felt that radicals were getting the upper hand under the Articles and in their respective sovereign States? I favor the later interpretation, but when using labels like conservative, one has to know what era one is talking about.
Now, take taxes. It is true that by going back to the original Constitution the Federal Government would lose its ability to collect income taxes (granted in the XVI Amendment). But that does not mean the government would collect or spend less money. It certainly would not stop the military industrial complex. Taxes could be raised by a Congress that "shall have the power to collect Taxes, Posts, Duties and Excises" (Article I, Section 8) constrained only by the phrase "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census." (Article 1, Section 9). Instead of paying income tax, you would pay more for goods and services. So for low federal taxing power you need to go back to the Articles.
Now consider the idea that the Constitution was explicitly undemocratic. It was not written by the people themselves, so it is not surprising that its democratic elements are minimal. The various states were, on the whole, more democratic in structure. The Constitution was largely written because of concerns that the people of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were pushing too hard for democracy and justice for all.
Yet the Federal Government under the original Constitution had strong democratic elements. Those elements were shored up by the growing idea that all people really are created equal and should have an equal say in government. The trend towards perfecting what was mere propaganda in the Declaration of Independence would lead to a lessening of the republican Constitutional elements, and increasing of the democratic elements, over the next two centuries.
First, the House of Representatives "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Chosen by the people. That is democracy, especially when you admit that every human is a member of the people, not just property-owning white males.
Second, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;" note they did not give this, the taxing power, to the Senate or President or Courts. That is because the historical experience then, as now, is that it is the fat cats who want to raise taxes to enrich themselves. To keep taxes low for most people it is safer to keep that power in the democratically elected lower house of Congress. It isn't fool proof, but it is better than allowing the Senate to run amok with that power.
But no constitutional framework can, in and of itself, guarantee justice and prosperity. People can, and some will, act badly within any system. We reached a point in after 2000 where business and political ethics just about completely disintegrated in the United States. People where so angry at a few dozen crazy Islamic militants that they took their eyes off what was happening in the U.S. We can't all be governing all the time; we need elected officials. But the people need to keep a close watch on their officials and the jackals (mostly corporate lobbyists) who beguile them.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Tea Party's Fundamentalist Constitution, Taxes, and Federalist No. 62
I get a fair amount of Tea Party people sending me email disagreeing with my essays on republics and democracies. Until recently Tea Party people were characterized in the "liberal" media (yes, I read the New York Times) as a hodgepodge of angry, mostly white, right-wing anti-tax, anti-immigrant, anti-Obama types. Now a new consensus is emerging, both in the Tea Party and for its observers: the main theme is going back to "the original United States Constitution."
Before I lose you, copy this to your clipboard, and then put it somewhere in your handy intellectual ammunition belt: But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." That is in The Federalist Papers No. 62, attributed to John Hamilton or James Madison. While it specifically refers to the decision that each state should have two senators in the Federal Senate, it also admits that a bunch of politicians got together and hammered out a Constitution based on mutual backscratching. If God entered the writing process, it was in mysterious ways.
Even though I disagree with many Tea Party positions, I love the idea that people are getting together and talking to each other about fundamental political ideas, unmediated by the corrupt major political parties.
My favorite email from a Tea Party guy so far said, "Bill, u r so wrong about democracy vs. a Republic lets see, I pledge aleigance to the flag , and the democracy for which it stands, no i dont think that is how it goes. And there was no such thing called u.s.citizenship until 1868, and it was created for the slaves. I dont have civil rights, I have unaleinable rights. But I can promise u this, the people of' this country are starting 2 wake up. The republic that was stolen from the people by that traitor, FDR is on its way back. Aint there is nothing u new world order people can do 2 stop it." [don't judge by the spelling, this was email, after all]
Since Tea Party people are reading the Constitution, maybe that will put an end to the tax-scam idea that the Federal Income Tax is illegal because we are all citizens of the States, not of the Federal Government. On the first page of my handy U.S. Consitituion it says "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have ... been seven Years a Citizen of the United States." That seems pretty clear. Federal citizenship began when the first Federal government convended. Find a better excuse to not pay your income taxes. [I suggest becoming an oil company]
And since they are reading the Constitution, maybe they will read about the events leading up to the Constitution. It may shock the Tea Party faithful to know that one of the main reasons for doing away with the Articles of Confederation was an armed tax revolt in Massachusetts, Shay's rebellion. And one of the first acts of the new Federal Government was the armed suppression of the Whiskey rebellion, which was also an anti-tax rebellion.
So if you are really anti-tax, and want a fundamentalist document to hang your hat on, you would want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. Which is all right by me. As far as I can tell, the declaration that the Constitution had superceded the Articles was a power play. When most people voted against the new Constitution, the elites had to use highly questionable methods to get it in place.
One thing I do agree with the Tea Party on is the misuse of the Commerce Clause. It was gradually made into a "Congress and Presidents and bureaucracies can do anything they want" clause. If Congress wants to regulate business in general, instead of leaving that power to the states, there should be an Amendment to the Constitution giving Congress that power, and clearly defining the extent of the power. [Best Commerce Clause book: Gaveling Down The Rabble
]
Reading the Constitution with a fundamentalist mindset is not a bad thing, if you have not read the Constitution before or thought about it. On the other hand, thinking the Constitution was written by God is just idiotic. It was written by just a another bunch of corrupt politicians who mostly whoreshipped at the altar of Wealth. The Constitution has needed amending and interpreting. In fact, I can think of a bunch of amendments I would like to add, like one giving Congress the explicit power to protect the environment.
But if you really want to see a bunch of idiots interpreting the Constitution, look at almost any Supreme Court decision of the last 20 years. Where do they find those guys?
Before I lose you, copy this to your clipboard, and then put it somewhere in your handy intellectual ammunition belt: But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." That is in The Federalist Papers No. 62, attributed to John Hamilton or James Madison. While it specifically refers to the decision that each state should have two senators in the Federal Senate, it also admits that a bunch of politicians got together and hammered out a Constitution based on mutual backscratching. If God entered the writing process, it was in mysterious ways.
Even though I disagree with many Tea Party positions, I love the idea that people are getting together and talking to each other about fundamental political ideas, unmediated by the corrupt major political parties.
My favorite email from a Tea Party guy so far said, "Bill, u r so wrong about democracy vs. a Republic lets see, I pledge aleigance to the flag , and the democracy for which it stands, no i dont think that is how it goes. And there was no such thing called u.s.citizenship until 1868, and it was created for the slaves. I dont have civil rights, I have unaleinable rights. But I can promise u this, the people of' this country are starting 2 wake up. The republic that was stolen from the people by that traitor, FDR is on its way back. Aint there is nothing u new world order people can do 2 stop it." [don't judge by the spelling, this was email, after all]
Since Tea Party people are reading the Constitution, maybe that will put an end to the tax-scam idea that the Federal Income Tax is illegal because we are all citizens of the States, not of the Federal Government. On the first page of my handy U.S. Consitituion it says "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have ... been seven Years a Citizen of the United States." That seems pretty clear. Federal citizenship began when the first Federal government convended. Find a better excuse to not pay your income taxes. [I suggest becoming an oil company]
And since they are reading the Constitution, maybe they will read about the events leading up to the Constitution. It may shock the Tea Party faithful to know that one of the main reasons for doing away with the Articles of Confederation was an armed tax revolt in Massachusetts, Shay's rebellion. And one of the first acts of the new Federal Government was the armed suppression of the Whiskey rebellion, which was also an anti-tax rebellion.
So if you are really anti-tax, and want a fundamentalist document to hang your hat on, you would want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. Which is all right by me. As far as I can tell, the declaration that the Constitution had superceded the Articles was a power play. When most people voted against the new Constitution, the elites had to use highly questionable methods to get it in place.
One thing I do agree with the Tea Party on is the misuse of the Commerce Clause. It was gradually made into a "Congress and Presidents and bureaucracies can do anything they want" clause. If Congress wants to regulate business in general, instead of leaving that power to the states, there should be an Amendment to the Constitution giving Congress that power, and clearly defining the extent of the power. [Best Commerce Clause book: Gaveling Down The Rabble
]Reading the Constitution with a fundamentalist mindset is not a bad thing, if you have not read the Constitution before or thought about it. On the other hand, thinking the Constitution was written by God is just idiotic. It was written by just a another bunch of corrupt politicians who mostly whoreshipped at the altar of Wealth. The Constitution has needed amending and interpreting. In fact, I can think of a bunch of amendments I would like to add, like one giving Congress the explicit power to protect the environment.
But if you really want to see a bunch of idiots interpreting the Constitution, look at almost any Supreme Court decision of the last 20 years. Where do they find those guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
