One Million Million

As the budgetary debate continues unabated within the political class and their media flacks, there seems to be emerging a recurring theme that has somehow gone unchallenged.

In the context of finding additional funds with which to use for the operation of government, that new catch phrase being trumpeted has been for “millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share”

It is indeed true that the United States tax code does offer certain and particular tax breaks and advantages to a few select citizens and corporations. On that basis alone, the tax code should be completely overhauled and restructured to insure a truly balanced framework with which to collect revenue. The debate should not be whether or not the government needs to be properly funded; of course it does. The debate should be on exactly what the government should be doing with that specified funding.

The question of ‘fairness’ relative to those aforementioned millionaires and billionaires however is nothing more than class envy and class warfare. Is not America the land where the only limitation on a citizen is their own desire in the pursuit of the American dream? By charging unfairness to those who have worked hard and played by the rules by definition makes that effort seem somehow unfair , bordering on apparent criminality,  to the rest of  the populace who have chosen not to choose a sizeable financial fortune as their particular definition of success. This is as it should be in the world’s foremost democracy. Each man left alone by the government to his own pursuits.

The ridiculous part of this debate of fairness however is that no one seems to have actually done even the most basic of math relative to ‘fairness’ and the national budget.

To wit:

The proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2012 is for roughly 3.8 trillion dollars: to better understand that number, it is necessary to remember that one trillion is a million million.

With that fact, this is how the numbers would work if the millionaires and billionaires paid what some of the political class would deem to be their fair share.

It would be inappropriate to garnish 100 percent of either an individuals or business’ income, so we will ignore those whose wealth is just 1 million dollars. Since the argument holds that millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share, let us use that million dollars as a benchmark, so let us consider a total wealth of two million dollars to be the threshold for this scenario.

It could be safely presumed that those whose wealth exceeds two million dollars would number at about one million entities -personal and corporate.

If we were to confiscate one million dollars from each of those million pocketbooks, we would only acquire ONE trillion dollars. The shortfall of almost three trillion dollars would need to come from the rest of the populace. That redistributed wealth would not fund the government for more than three months and pay nothing towards the national debt.

Of course, once the fact that one million dollars a year was being confiscated from ones wealth, what exactly would the motivation be to succeed and prosper? Those million picked pocketbooks would begin to shrink, putting an even greater responsibility on those who could ill afford to appease the governmental appetite for funds.

The budget process is broken; there are a million reasons why, but one inescapable fact; it must be fixed and brought into balance or the land of prosperity will dwindle and fade into the dusty pages of history.

Eighteen Point Four

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” – attributed to Benjamin Franklin

In the midst of the haze, hysteria and raging examples of political cowardice that was the debt ceiling debate these past several weeks, a commonly voiced, but little noted, concern of both political extremes held that there needed to be federal funding to help salvage our crumbling roads and assorted related infrastructure and that said funding needed to be appropriated separate and distinct from any imagined compromise on the debt ceiling requirements. We were told by the political class and their media flacks that crumbling roads and accompanying injuries or worse would be attributed to those who opted not to help preserve this part of America.

A solid sounding, if otherwise ridiculous, talking point to be sure, spewed forth with solemnity but wildly inaccurate and sadly one that was never confronted or even questioned in passing. This is an example of the canards floated by our elected officials when faced with the realities of our national financial health and their delinquency of duty in addressing these national concerns.

They either outright lie or exemplify stupidity in action. These are not ad hominum attacks; they are observations based upon factual actions and responses by those who are entrusted with the fiduciary health of this nation.

There can be little debate on the collective incompetence of Congress when the following facts are ignored, or chosen to be the subject of obfuscation.

(ed. Note: the following information was gathered directly from the official United States Department of Transportation and the

Federal Highway

Administration website. This information is available to any citizen, even those who hold elected office)

On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.

So the question demands an answer: How can there be a need for additional national debt relief and highway financing when there is a tax of 18.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline sold being redirected to the national coffers to be absorbed into the general fund instead of its intended usage?

The American electorate must answer this question in the only way those who live in a free and democratic society have at their disposal; Receive an intelligent response from those entrusted with the budgetary responsibilities for this nation, or in the absence of any substantive and salient answers, vote those responsible out of office en masse’.

American can not long prosper if those with fiduciary responsibilities handle our finances with this level of ignorance.

18.4 cents of each and every gallon of gasoline –almost two dollars on the average fill up -  the number is staggering.

Demand an answer: it is YOUR money.

The Fraud of the Balanced Budget Amendment

Amidst the flurry of imbecility and political cowardice that has become the debate on the national debt ceiling, one constant canard being bandied about is a constitutional amendment that would mandate a balanced budget. Proponents of such an endeavour claim that it is the only way to insure the future fiscal health of our nation.

While any successfully passed constitutional amendment is by definition constitutional, such a measure should best be described as being akin to prohibition; an idea that sounded popular for its time, but failed in colossal fashion in its implementation.

A balanced budget amendment would be anathema to the founders and framers. They created a framework within which the nation could prosper and flourish and become the hallmark of a free people, but it was contingent on the belief that those given the authority to govern would do so under the presupposition of doing what was best for the nation.

The Constitution gives broad but restricted powers to the three branches of government. The Congress was bestowed with, among other responsibilities, the obligation to manage the fiduciary needs of the nation. A democracy by definition will be a chorus of different voices, but abdicating ones part in the choir is unacceptable.

A federal government must protect and defend its people. Imagine a balanced budget amendment being in force in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Would we have opted out of all of the short term financial needs based solely on the premise that we could not afford it? National disasters are unable to be accounted for within a budgetary framework. Imagine an earthquake in California: would we opt not to provide the massive amount of resources such a catastrophe would necessitate by telling Los Angeles we had met our budget limit on disasters for the year?

There are nations that wish us ill and continue to attempt to do us harm. Were we to be attacked by a sovereign nation would we only fight until our yearly budgeted allotment of bullets were utilized, at which point we would ask for an armistice until we could afford to purchase additional armaments in the subsequent years budget?

Granted, such examples are ludicrous on their face, but such is the nature of unforeseen consequences. There are people of good conscience that believe we should immediately retreat from all foreign military engagements. If they were able to deal with these missions on a budgetary basis, the question must be asked if they would indeed do so.

The flip side of those scenarios is just as insidious in their creation. An insolent Congress could claim that they could find no additional ways to save funding to bring the budget into balance, and so there would be a need for tax increases due to constitutional mandates. It is rarefied air that contains tax increases that are subsequently reversed.

At the heart of the issue however is a precept more basic and fundamental that goes to the very nature of a free nation.

Millions of Americans balance their household budgets simply because they know they must, or face specific consequences.

Do our elected officials not have the individual self control and intelligence to properly steward this nation simply because they do not understand it is their fundamental responsibility? A balanced budget amendment would allow for some level of mischievous misinterpretation by one political faction or another.

The best example of this is campaign finance reform, heralded by Congress as the way to ‘clean up’ the election process and remove the corruptive influence of money in politics.

The ink was not yet dry on the legislation before the first Political Action Committee (PAC) was formed, thereby effectively sidestepping the entire issue.

We cannot allow our elected officials to abdicate their responsibilities, or to allow our posterity to pay, literally, for the lack of courage on our part to protect their future.

Space - A Commentary.

(ed. note – when events not having anything particularly relative to the mission of the Madison Conservative blog, there are nonetheless times when issues of public policy demand a comment. This is one such instance.)

The United States took a major step towards mediocrity this week and the American people should take close notice.

On Thursday July 21^st the shuttle Atlantis touched down on the Shuttle Landing Facility's Runway 15 at 5:57 a.m. EDT, effectively ending the United States’ 50 year history of manned space flight. The shuttle program had its detractors from the beginning given that the shuttle design was more a design by committee, focusing on the costs and business abilities attached to the shuttle design. It was conceived as a ‘space truck’ that could bring man and supplies into space, establishing first a space station, eventually transitioning to adding construction capabilities for extended space flights to our planetary brethren. We are now abdicating that ability to do either of those goals.

The shuttle programs’ successes and failures will be undoubtedly debated by historians for decades and centuries hence, but the underlying reality is that it was a critical sense of  continuity from the first Mercury program, then to Gemini and then the moon flights of Apollo, a link in what should have been the uninterrupted progress of Americans in the final frontier.

The societal benefits achieved can also be debated, but must also be acknowledged. This blog is being written on a computer that is infinitely more sophisticated in its computing power than that which was aboard the Apollo 11 mission that first put a man on the moon, yet the space program made this computer possible.

Our elected officials spew forth diatribes about how American students are lacking behind their contemporaries from other countries in the essential disciplines of math, science and engineering. These national leaders have forgotten the awe that fueled the imagination and inspired a generation immersed in the space race. It is difficult to inspire the imagination when those dreams will necessitate first refining ones’ hitchhiking skills – “Using your Thumb 101”.

This goes beyond that, however.

We have national security components and devices currently in orbit. Should they need attention or repair, we are not properly able to attend to those needs. We will need to schedule and pay for a ride with countries that do not necessarily have our national interests at heart.

The nation that brought together the best and brightest to attain that which millennia of people had long thought impossible, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,  is now relegated into bumming a ride.

This is unacceptable.

Politicians and their media flacks blather on about green technologies. Those technologies would be given their proper attention in the scientific mind, as such technologies would be necessary for near and deep space exploration. The fuel cell is a perfect example of that reality. Who could completely perceive what benefits could be gleaned from a renewed space exploration program.

America is a beacon of freedom around the world. We cannot, must not abdicate our responsibility for leadership by voluntarily withdrawing from the exploration of the heavens.

We must return to manned space flight immediately, lest we relegate ourselves to being but a mere footnote in the accomplishments of man.

The Budget Debate (Again) July 2011

…“to ourselves and our posterity"…

As the churlish and childish wrangling continues unabated over the configuration of the debt ceiling legislation, it is time to once again look towards the founders and the framers for proper guidance and wisdom to resolve the infantile political logjam.

There is no single solution that can be provided by either political extreme; as always, the proper course must be guided by pragmatic compromise.

That solution is easily at hand.

A look at recent history, however, shows the folly of blind compromise, a solution that was no solution at all but rather nonsensical gibberish that has done nothing but fuel the current financial distress. Moving the problem forward in time has been the prevailing option for the past several decades; such choices must end.

To wit:

There are those who claim that the balanced budgets and surpluses of the late 1990’s were squandered and plundered by subsequent administrations. This is ridiculous after even the most cursory examination of the reality of those budgets. The balance claim is supported only by accounting gimmickry that a fourth grader with an abacus could easily discount. The surplus, based upon the budget claims could also be disproved simply by noting that such assertions were based upon cuts that were scheduled for a future date uncertain.

If we accept that a balanced budget and surplus could be realistically attained simply by promising to cut future spending, no rational American who needs to balance their checkbook monthly would ever pay their debts; they would merely send out IOU’s and promise to send in the money later, once they cut out the unnecessary parts of their household budget.

The American public can no longer accept this type of fiduciary mismanagement.

The founders have provided us with the framework of a reasoned and acceptable compromise for those who claim that only cuts or only raising taxes are the solely acceptable solution. Neither option is realistic or financially sound.

Given that the political class always seems to enact the income side first, with cuts scheduled for later, the debt ceiling legislation can be easily worded to accommodate all sides, and rejected only by those who are either imbeciles, politically cowardly, or both.

The legislation could be so structured to first provide the government with a proper audit of the operating, or direct overhead, costs required to run the government, to be completed by a date certain, perhaps three months hence. This can be the first place to discover cost savings and provide a blueprint to begin required budget cuts.  The second tier would be cuts that both sides seem ready to accept, apparently in the area of two trillion dollars.

Once these cuts have been fully enacted, the legislation could then provide for eliminating non essential tax breaks for corporations and other entities that are being supported on the public dole.

The last part of the legislation would be revenue increases. They would be mandated by discovering the cost of government. If there are budgetary increases needed, the American electorate could at least be assured that such revenue increase are as a last resort; all the outstanding waste and frivolity has been eliminated. The American people could then accept the deal because all other options have been explored and utilized.

The founders trust in American democracy and self-rule for themselves and their posterity would be well founded and well deserved and we could continue to pass along a nation financially secure for ourselves and our posterity.

The Buck Stops With Congress.

“..and secure the blessings of Liberty…”

The nonsense and ignorance continues in Washington D.C. amongst the political class and their commentator flacks in all form of media as the budget issues continue to escalate. There seems to be a propensity towards outright stupidity in the absence of true leadership and honest statesmanship. The honest debate, once the proud hallmark of American democracy and self-rule is being replaced by an appalling and shrill shrieking lack of knowledge.

It is becoming embarrassing to those who respect the document upon which this nation was constructed; the United States Constitution.

The latest salvos in the ongoing fiscal war are being fired as our elected officials worry more about keeping their positions of (temporary) authority and (granted by the electorate) power and less about the short term and long term financial health of our nation.

Sadly, many commentators of both political extremes are doing their part to help obfuscate and cloud the real issues and are growing successful in their attempts to drown out the rational and reasoned arguments being brought forth to address an issue, that if left unchecked, will plunge this nation into financial chaos..

They blather on about ‘constitutional crises’ over the budget and with their most desperate vocal tones worry aloud on the presidents’ authority to address these monetary issues by executive fiat. These proposals are floated by the wily sycophants of both major political parties and the American electorate should be outraged.

The constitutional language is precise and wholly unambiguous on these matters, so the language of ‘constitutional crisis’ begs the question – have those in elected office ever read our founding document, or at least even perused the section that relates to their official governmental offices? A ‘crisis’ would ensue if there was no constitutional authority bestowed upon any branch of government to deal with a given situation. That may happen one day, but it does not exist for this situation.

Article two of the United States Constitution clearly spells out the duties and responsibilities of the chief executive. It does not mention, in any form, the power or responsibility to be directly involved in any budgetary framing issue.

The founders constructed this nation that way for a reason. They did not want one person to hold that much power and authority within their newly formed government. The Constitution does, however, state the following within Article One, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes…”

“The Congress shall have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States…”

“The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof…”

Therein lays the power and the responsibility for the financial health of the nation. There is no doubt as to the interpretation of the founders on this point. There may some doubt within the cowardly heart of many a politician, but the Constitution is clear where lies the responsibility for maintaining the fiduciary integrity of the United States of America.

As a body, Congress has failed miserably, and their oath of office requires that they protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It appears they have collectively failed in their jobs.

They must be held accountable and the electorate must demand that they stop attempting to place blame and shirk their constitutional mandate.

If the people do not, this nation will indeed perish from the face of the Earth.

Independence Day 2011

As the political season centering on the 2012 presidential election begins to heat up prematurely and thus successfully diminish the significance of the 2011 elections, the tired and baneful process of creating imaginary enemies has begun. Both extremes of the political spectrum are beginning their hue and cry of ‘taking back our country’ from the opposition. The American electorate should shun this process and these attempts to demonize our fellow citizens for short term and short sighted political advantages.

We are all Americans: we know better than to disparage each other in this manner.

There should be no belief that the country needs to be “taken back”. The nation collectively should look to gather together.

Invariably, the founders and the framers are brought into this debate on the belief that their use will help prop up and support the nonsensical petty political argument being made. While there are ample examples of the political beliefs of the founders, there are precious few personal, and thus more emotional and contemporaneous, written commentaries for use to use to establish the feelings they had, in context of founding their new democracy.

On this 235^th anniversary of the founding of the greatest nation the world has ever beheld, the words of one of the founders should be reexamined for direction on how we as a nation can find common ground upon which to base our future.

The following excerpt is from a letter written by John Adams to his beloved Abigail. There were few more openly and unabashedly passionate founders than Adams on the subject of the infant nation. His comments speak volumes to those who wish to listen.

To wit:

(ed. Note: the original punctuations and spellings have been left intact)

July 3^rd, 1776:

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America – I am apt to believe it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more….I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.”

We should consider Adams’ perspective when we stop and consider the precious gift of our freedom and what we have lost in blood and treasure in the pursuit and defense of our independence. We should not disengage from the emotional component of democracy, and we should contemplate giving thanks for the opportunities we have been given.

Let us celebrate our nation with all the fanfare we can muster.

Perhaps if we celebrate as Adams’ suggests we can agree on our common heritage and decide to move forward together, so that as a nation we can confidently “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

We owe ourselves, our nation, and her posterity no less.

Happy July 4^th and may God continue to bless all of America!