Can The Western Democracies Survive?

Western Democracies from Greece to the United States are suffering from the “wants;” they are screaming “Gimme, gimme—more and more money!” (When there is no more money.) In the United States, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Ireland, and eventually, France, workers are calling for more and more government handouts in the form of entitlements. Even corporations in these countries are demanding to be on the government dole. None of this is news; we have heard it for years!

Greeks are demonstrating in their streets against government austerity programs. Ohioans voted yesterday to keep public employees on the government handout programs with health insurance and pension benefits. Nobody seems able to understand that THE MONEY IS GONE! All these demonstrations and votes for more entitlements are saying that they want everyone else to foot the bills for their benefits. This includes union members as well as corporations.

An unhappy byproduct of a welfare state is that it creates powerful interests that will fight to the last to preserve their free lunch, no matter the cost to the country. America’s federal debt was 35.7% of GDP in 2007, but it was 61.3% last year and is predicted to reach 90% by 2020 according to the Congressional Budget Office. These figures were arrived at based on President Obama’s 2011 budget submitted by the White House Office of Management and Budget in February 2011. For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios “above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more,” according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland.

Democracies fall when the people finally realize that they can vote themselves financial benefits to be paid for by other people. Unless Americans begin to understand that they must sacrifice some of their affluence to the general good of the nation, as they did during World War II, our country is doomed.

Do We Need Moral Politicians/Leaders?

In the past, America was founded on the idea of innate human goodness; this concept especially found prominence in the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. They believed that if the people of a democratic republic were left alone to carry on commerce in the world according to the dictates of common sense morality and ethics, all men would get along together. They even thought that wars would cease to be. Even up into the early 20th Century, both political parties were dedicated primarily to the goal of making a better American, one with better education, religion, and even morality.

Honesty, faithfulness, virtue, reliability, and trustworthiness were qualities that received widespread consensus in America. But, alas, those character qualities are long gone from the top of the American priority list. When the honesty of President Grant was questioned, he responded that to question the honesty of a United States President was tantamount to questioning the virtue and chastity of an unmarried woman. (WOW! How times have changed!) Now, as Francis Fukuyama has lamented, American thought is dedicated to increasing the gross domestic product and distributing it evenly. Long gone, it seems, is the value of moral integrity among our political leaders. Politicians seem convinced that if they were to commit some moral or ethical offense, the system of republican checks and balances will compensate for it--so…it is no longer necessary to mind one’s moral manners in private or even public matters.

We are seeing this kind of thinking manifesting itself in the present-day political scene with Herman Cain and his girlfriends taking center stage in a campaign for President. Many are saying that Cain’s behavior in private is just his private affair—what matters most is how he will behave in the business office of the President. Bill Clinton received just that kind of waiver even when he had to pay $850,000 to rid himself of the scandal of Paula Jones. After that was all over, he seemed to receive the approbation of the American people, who felt sorry for him. His comment in all that matter was, “My morals are the same as the morals of the American people.” Sad, but true!

I take strong exception to all of this. I believe strongly that if a man cannot be trusted in his moral life, if he cannot be faithful in his marriage, faithful to the most sacred of all human promises (marriage), he cannot be trusted to carry out the business of government reliably. One who can be trusted is worthy of commendation and added responsibility. Jesus recognized this principle, and in the parable of the talents, he said, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.” (Matt 25:21)

Is Suicide an Option?

I realize that many who read this blog post will have had a loved one who was so hopelessly disabled by accident or illness that they and the family have seriously considered suicide as the best outcome for the situation. But…is that an ethical, spiritually justifiable, moral, solution to such a problem? I think not, and for the following reasons:

First of all, the Commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Human life is not to be ended by men; and I think that this Commandment applies equally to one’s own life as well as to the lives of others. Two notable exceptions exist: Christians and others have long considered that it is permissible to take human life in a justifiable war and for self-defense. But, otherwise, there is no defensible reason for taking human life.

Secondly, we have a scriptural instruction on this subject in the second chapter of the book of Job (v.9,10). In the height of Job’s suffering, his wife said to him, “’Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.’ But he said to her, ‘You speak as one of the foolish women who speak. Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil?’ In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” Job refused to sacrifice his own life, even though he was suffering greatly.

Thirdly, justifying suicide leads to the further degradation of the respect for human life, in general; and it guides one to endorse other forms of disrespect for human life, e.g., abortion and euthanasia—death by committee!

Several years ago, I was practicing medicine in Detroit. A 55 year old nurse came to me complaining of severe back pain; the pain was said to be so severe that she was considering suicide—she had already consulted Dr. Kevorkian about killing herself. She told me that she wanted an unlimited supply of morphine and that if I did not give it to her, she was going to kill herself.

I made sure that all indicated diagnostic tests were made to find out what was causing the back pain, e.g., X-rays, CT scan, orthopedic and psychiatric consultations. The only finding was the presence of mild arthritis of the spine, which was appropriate for her age.

Not being willing to induce opiate addiction by supplying her with unlimited amounts of morphine, I refused to prescribe what she requested. She went to another doctor who supplied her with the drugs.

Three months later, she appeared on TV with Dr. Kevorkian testifying to the necessity and advisability of elective suicide. Within a few days, Dr. Kevorkian took her to the front door of the local police station in his van and helped her kill herself.

This case illustrates how liberal and permissive attitudes toward suicide lead to gross abuse of human life.

Suicide is not the answer to human suffering. God gives life; and only he has the right to take it away.

The REAL inequality in American Society

I strongly recommend that everyone who is interested in understanding the real inequality in American society should read the New York Times editorial referred to in the link below. This news is especially appropriate for those who have children growing up, because I am sure that you want your children to be on the right side of the inequality divide. Social Inequality

Why Keynesians Keep Getting It Wrong

Those who heaped high praise in Keynesian policies have grown silent as government spending has failed to bring an economic recovery. Except for a few diehards who want still more government spending and those who make the unverifiable claim that the economy would have collapsed without it, most now recognize that more than a trillion dollars of spending by the Bush and Obama administrations has left the economy in a slump and unemployment above 9%.

Why is the economic response to increased government spending so different from the response predicted by Keynesian models? What is missing from the model that makes their forecasts so inaccurate? There are four reasons for this miscalculation on the part of our leaders:

1) Big increases in spending and government deficits raise the prospect of future tax increases. This scares off investors.
2) Government spending programs redistribute income from workers/producers to the unemployed. This precludes an effect that would increase productivity. Unemployed people are less likely to be the ones to increase productivity.
3) Keynesian methods increases governmental regulations, and that increases costs without an increase in useful production.
4) The estimated cost of new jobs in President Obama’s latest jobs bill is at least $200,000 per job based on administration estimates of the number of jobs and their cost. How can that appeal to the taxpayers who will pay for those costs? Once the subsidies end, the jobs will likely end, too.

We have spent nearly a trillion dollars and have nothing to show for it in the form of new jobs. All we have is a bunch of IOU’s. Throwing a lot more money into this fiasco (in the form of President Obama’s jobs bill) and expecting a different response seems stupid to me.

This blog post was partly redacted from the Wall Street Journal 28 October 2011, page A17.

We Don’t Need Higher Taxes—We Need Lower Taxes!

Congress’s Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is struggling to find $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. This is a unique opportunity to use tax reform to reduce future budget deficits while lowering individual tax rates.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 showed how a tax reform that includes lower rates can change incentives in a way that grows the tax base and produces extra revenue for the federal government. In that law, the top tax rate in the U.S. was reduced from 50% to 28%.

After that law was enacted, there was an enormous rise in taxes paid, particularly by those who experienced the greatest reductions in tax rates. Taxpayers who faced a tax rate of 50% in 1985 were paying 50% of federal taxes. After 1986, they began paying 72% of the federal intake! That was because the decrease in taxes provided an incentive to invest and to take financial risks that grew the economy.

Our government should look at the experience of 1986. Lowering taxes will increase the federal intake of revenue monies.

This blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 24 October 2011, page A15.

Voter Fraud Perpetrated by ACORN/Project Vote in Colorado

On 4 August 2011, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Coloraqdo Department of State showing that ACORN and its affiliate, Project Vote, successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public registration agencies was four times the national average.

The attempts of ACORN/Project Vote to upset the voter registration system in Colorado was spearheaded by Amy Busefink, who at the time was under indictment on 13 voter violation charges in Nevada.

Democrat, Bernie Buesher, who served as Colorado Secretary of State from January 2009through January 2011was complicit in these efforts to jury rig the Colorado voter registration system. He took measures to satisfy the demands of Project Vote related to the registration of public assistance recipients. Buescher sought a waiver from the Obama administration that would have allowed a delay in sending out ballots in time for military personnel to vote in the last election. The Department of Defense rejected the request. Apparently Colorado’s concern for voting rights of its citizens did not extend to military personnel in the state.

This blog post was excerpted from “The Judicial Watch Verdict” of October 2011.