The Politics of Accountability

Your Opinion Is Irrelevant

    I've been giving a lot of thought lately to how exactly we got here- tens of trillions of dollars in debt and saddled with the further burden of a federal government, the size and scope of which was never intended by our Founding Fathers. 

    As Thomas Pynchon wrote, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Getting you asking the wrong questions is a tactic which has been increasing employed by our elected "leaders" in recent decades. By doing so, they have morphed our Constitutional Republic, with its principals of limited government, minority rights, property rights, state's rights, etc., into a bloated, overreaching, centralized "democracy" where the benefit of the "collective" trumps individual liberty.

    Even much of the media has been accomplice to our elected leaders in promoting the notion that what the majority of Americans think is somehow of paramount significance in deciding the direction of this country. Watch the popular evening news/commentary programs to see how many ask you to go online and vote on their latest poll question. In doing so, the talking heads actually assist our federal government in its ongoing power-grab by framing the debate in a way that gets you asking the wrong questions. That way, they don't have to worry about the answers. Allow me to explain.

    First, it should be noted that our Founding Fathers never considered democracy to be a suitable form of government. On the contrary, the Framers of our Constitution considered democracy as great a threat to individual liberty as the monarchy from which they had broken free. James Madison described democracy as "the most vile form of government." In Federalist #10, Madison had this to say regarding democracy:

        "A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

    Such "turbulence and contention," such disdain for the weaker party has never been more evident than in recent years. Consider the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, responding to queries from the press regarding allegations by Republican members of the House that they were completely shut out of the process of drafting the recent $825 billion stimulus bill. "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election." Does Madam Speaker conclude, then, that all of the views and concerns of the minority party, and the millions of Americans, whether fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, etc., who share those views and concerns are thus irrelevant? Apparently so.

    I could enumerate the myriad of instances where, more and more in our "democracy," individual liberties are trampled by the will of the majority, where increasingly government sees fit to intrude in our daily lives, where Congress or the courts undermine our property rights (that includes the ever-increasing burden of taxation, the seizure of private property for a "public good" such as took place in the controversial Kelo decision) and so forth, but if the size, scope, and reach of our government isn't alarming enough for any of you by now, I'm not going to waste my time.

    The real question is, how in the Hell did we get here? And the answer is, by asking the wrong questions. It doesn't matter whether the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage or abortion or think drugs are bad or health care is too expensive. The first question we ought to be asking is, "are these issues the business of the federal government?" "Is this Constitutional?"

    Why do we look to the largest bureaucracy in the United States, perhaps the world, to solve our problems, to legislate morality? Why would we continue to hand over more and more of our money and our freedoms, delegate more of our personal responsibilities, like...say, saving for retirement, to a central government? Evidently, so they can confuscate 6.2% of our income (and compel our employer to "match" it) to pay Social Security benefits to someone else because they've depleted the Social Security trust. How much more power, liberty, and income will we give over for the security blanket of big government promises and a mountain of new debt to be heaped on the backs of future generations?

    The Constitution places very specific, limited responsibilities in the hands of the federal government- things like our national defense and regulating interstate commerce. There's NOTHING in the United States Constitution that says the federal government is supposed to protect us from our own irresponsibility or tell us who can or cannot marry or what you can do in the privacy of your own home. That we have offered up our liberty out of fear, insecurity, or the lie that our country was intended to be a democracy, where the majority can simply tell the minority, "We won," is not only remarkable. It's detestable.

    Remember the words of Henry David Thoreau, "If I knew for certain that a man was coming to my house to do me good, I would run for my life." We've given so much in exchange for the federal government's promise to do good one wonders how we got to this point.

    By asking the wrong questions. For decades. And as pennance for your sins, for looking the other way when it was your side that was in the majority and showing little restraint (fiscal or otherwise), your liberties, your property rights, and, finally, your opinions no longer matter.

The "Separate But Equal" Fallacy

    It's remarkable how myth or misinformation has a way of seeping into the collective unconscious of the American people. Repeated often enough by bloggers, journalists, and politicians, dogma can rapidly evolve into archetype, opiate for the masses which replaces fact altogether in our understanding of politics or popular culture. 

    How many people, for example, believe that Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading when, in fact, she was convicted of lying to federal prosecutors? Or that Bill Clinton's impeachment was "all about sex" and not Clinton's efforts to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinsky from the American people, and specifically to keep the fact of the affair out of evidence and thus deny Paula Jones her Constitutionally protected right to a fair trial as plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit against Clinton (and for which he was later disbarred)?

    While instances such as these may often be semantic, others are far more significant. One of these has to do with what I call the Separate But Equal Fallacy. For years I have observed, with ever-increasing frequency, average citizens, bloggers, members of the media, and even elected officials refer to our three "separate but equal" branches of government. I've also observed that this fallacy tends to be put forth, more often than not, by members of the left- Democratic politicians, Bill Maher, The Daily Kos, to name but a few.

    For example, in a 2006 interview with PBS's Jim Lehrer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "And you, of course, have the three separate but equal branches of government, and the legislative earmarks are part of our responsibility (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june06/reid_1-18.html)." And Lehrer, of course, made no effort to correct him.

    Unless Reid was referring to some unknown policy whereby African-American employees of the federal government are required to dine in separate cafeterias, and use separate water fountains and restrooms, the Senator is either wrong or deliberately attempting to deceive the American people into believing something that simply isn't true.

    "Separate but equal" has NOTHING to do with our federal system of government; it has to do with the shameful policy of segregation in this country stretching from Reconstruction into the 1960's. This policy was upheld by the now-infamous Plessy v. Furgeson case in 1896, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7-1 decision (Justice Brewer did not participate) that separate facilities (in this case, railroad cars) for African-Americans did not constitute discrimination provided those facilities were equal (which of course, they rarely were).

    The decision of the court upheld the legality of "Jim Crow" laws, which began to emerge in the 1870's, until 1954's Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka struck down public school segregation. Subsequently, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 overturned the remaining laws in the states that had not yet backed away from Jim Crow altogether.

    This notion that the three branches of our federal government are separate but equal is not only fallacious, it's dangerous. It is true that the Framers of our Constitution espoused a "separation of powers" and a system of "checks and balances," whereby each branch of the government served as a check against either of the other two branches acquiring too much power; however, this is hardly the same as separate but equal.

    An examination of the writings of the Founding Fathers reveals that it was their intent that the Judiciary specifically be a "lesser branch" of the government. They feared the prospect of a concentration of too much power in the hands of nine men ("men," at the time) who were to be given lifetime appointments:

 

        “The judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

        “...the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.”

                    --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

         "The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

                    --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, 1804       

        It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."

                    --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

        "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

                    --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823

    Abraham Lincoln, too, warned of the emerging doctrine of law by judicial fiat:  "If the policy of the Government upon vital questions...is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

 

    It's important to keep in mind that it was never the Framers' intent that the power of the Judiciary be equal to that of either the Executive or Legislative branch. As evidenced today by the confirmation process, it is clear that many members of our Senate are far less concerned with the qualifications of any federal judge than they are with his or her political ideology.

    This has as much to do with their politics as it does with the acknowledgement that where legislation may fail, court decisions will prevail, and that while politicians are (supposed to be) accountable to the people, judges may usurp civil liberties (i.e- Kelo v. City of New London, CT) with impunity, "for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow."

    The result is a sinister collaboration between activist judges over-reaching their Constitutional mandates and like-minded politicians and special interests, who look to the courts, not as an arbiter of justice whose role is limited to interpreting the law and upholding the Constitution, but as a safety net, a means to creating new laws when the legislative body lacks either the will or the votes to do so.

    Of course, this is only possible if they can convince "we the people" that the Judiciary is EQUAL to the Executive and the Legislative branches in its power.

Deficits Matter

More on this later.

Corporations Don't Pay Taxes!

Let's talk about this notion that many on the left have- to increase what is already the second highest corporate income tax rate in the world and make these evil corporations pay their "fair share." It's an interesting notion, if by interesting you mean one of the stupidest, most ignorant economic proposals out there today. Sure, the rhetoric is enticing. After all, why shouldn't these companies pay more since I'm struggling just to live paycheck-to-paycheck? In fact, let's add a windfall profits tax for companies that are turning these really obscene profits. Take the oil companies, for example. Why, Exxon-Mobil had 2nd quarter profits of around twelve billion dollars! Why tax me when I'm already paying an additional two dollars per gallon for gas and my home energy bills are skyrocketing?

 

This idea is so fundamentally flawed it's difficult to know exactly where to begin- so let me start by pointing out that in the same quarter that Exxon-Mobil netted that record-setting figure, it also paid federal taxes of more than thirty-two billion dollars! Though it’s actually more accurate to say they allocated thirty-two billion dollars in taxes to the federal government, because corporations don’t pay taxes.

 

Understanding this concept requires an understanding of what a corporation is. Various definitions are characterized by terms like, “a group regarded as individual by law;” “a company recognized as a single body…;” or “a group of people acting as a single entity.” The word corporation comes from the Latin word, corpus, corpora (pl.), meaning “body,” which can refer to a literal “body” or other collection of parts, as musician catalogue of music or an author’s collected writings make up a “body” of work.

 

As the definition suggests, in the case of a corporation, its constituents, it’s “parts” are people. Corporations are made up of people, (such as employees, owners, and investors/shareholders) and corporations don’t pay taxes- taxes are invariably borne by people.

  

Corporate taxes are no different than any other expense- they are simply a cost of doing business which impacts the corporation’s bottom line. Thus, an increase in corporate taxes represents an increase in the cost of doing business, fundamentally no different than an increase in the cost of materials or payroll.

 

When a business is faced with increased costs, strictly speaking the corporation can do one of two things- it can absorb the costs or it can pass on the cost. A corporation can pass along the cost in a number of ways; for example, it can raise prices, which hurts consumers; it can reduce payroll (by cutting salaries or eliminating jobs), which hurts the employees; it can reduce the rate at which it replaces inventory, which hurts its suppliers and trickles down to their employees; it can reduce benefits, which increases costs to the employees for things like health care, and may even reduce utilization of health care and impact the bottom line of health care providers; it could reduce dividends, which hurts investors and makes it more difficult to attract investment capital, which in turn hurts the business and its employees; or, it could ship jobs, or the entire company, overseas which eliminates jobs and tax revenue and hurts everyone.

 

On the other hand, if a business decides to absorb the cost of a tax increase for whatever reason, again, there are still negative consequences. Say, for example, that a company decides that every one of its employees is absolutely necessary to the business, that it can’t remain competitive if it raises its prices, that it can’t cut salary or streamline inventories or cut costs in any way. What sort of options might be available to such a company? It could close its doors, hurting the employees, suppliers, and consumers, and eliminating any tax revenue to the government; or, if it could afford it, simply allow the cost to go directly to its bottom line. This would result in lower earnings, a reduction in the value of the stock, and which hurts investors, makes it more difficult to attract investment capital, and impedes growth, which in turn hurts the business and its employees.

 

          Conversely, lower taxes could allow a business reduce prices which benefits the consumer, to grow more rapidly and create jobs, or, with increased earnings pay higher shareholder dividends and/or increases the value of its stock, which makes it easier to attract investment capital, etc., etc., etc.

 

          By now, it should be obvious that not only are higher corporate taxes borne by people, but they tend to contract the economy, while lower corporate taxes stimulate the economy and benefits everyone, because they keep businesses here and keep them operating more efficiently. That grows the economy, creates jobs, and, history has shown us, actually increases tax revenues to the federal government in the form of a smaller piece of a far bigger pie.

 

          I’ve said before and I will say again, you cannot tax your way out of a recession. If we were facing hyper-inflation, tax increases to slow the economy might be appropriate. It is the last thing we need in the midst of this current slowdown. Low taxes are not the problem. Eight years of irresponsible spending and government corruption- that’s the problem. So, ask yourself when you cast your vote- which candidates seek to implement pro-growth policies to stimulate a shrinking economy and which candidates’ policies would further contract it?