Monthly Archives: August 2012

God or Government?

Posted by Tim on

Our nation was founded on the belief that men and women are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For these rights to live on, our government was set up with a complex system of checks and balances. No one person or party can govern against the will of the people, and even the will of the people is limited by our Constitution and the Supreme Court.

But our founders also knew that in order for our society to prosper our people would need to have good values, a strong work ethic, and a belief in God. Of course, there is a freedom of religion, and there is no national “God”. Our Founding Fathers also weren’t advocating a theocracy. What they were saying is that faith and religion were important. If liberty is limited by government, then we need something else to rule us. Our government isn’t here to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Much of what is morally wrong is perfectly legal. But to preserve the civil society, we need to have some kind of rule in place – God.

It is precisely when people lose their faith in God that they start looking for salvation in other places. Some people find their God in material things; houses, cars, fortunes in offshore bank accounts. Other people find their God in themselves; fame, admiration, power. The masses will many times come to replace God with government. The world is imperfect, and God doesn’t offer solutions nearly as quickly as government does. Many times we feel as if God is ignoring us, but government… government listens to us if we elect the right people.

Our democratic system however is designed specifically to hinder progression. All those checks and balances really get in the way when we’re trying to move things along. Of course this is done on purpose. New laws shouldn’t be passed willy nilly. The government’s power to do bad is infinitely greater than its power to do good. But nevermind all of that. People want their “progress” and they want it now!

F.A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom,

Yet, agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given the powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.

F.A. Hayek

F.A. Hayek

Hayek was talking about people becoming frustrated with the slowness of the democratic process and believing that government’s powers shouldn’t be as limited as they are. In fact, some people may want to give powers to a single authority and count on that person to just “do what is best”. They are ignorant of the fact that they are demanding a dictator.

This is happening today. Cries from both sides of the aisle (although more so from the left) are telling politicians to just “do what needs to be done” without worrying whether they actually have the power to do such things. During the debates over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, people wanted the president to just issue an executive order that would raise the debt ceiling regardless of what congress says. These people are asking for one person to have all the power – a dictator, a God.

If we want liberty, we need something to govern us other than government. God is the answer. How is it that we survived so long without government passing new laws everyday? We didn’t need all of these laws before. But God has slowly been kicked to the curb, and people are crying out for government to rescue us. The security government gives us is a trade off with liberty. The security God gives us is not.

The battle with overpowering government is not just with Washington. It is a battle of good and evil; of light and darkness. If we live in a world without God, we live in darkness. It is in this darkness where totalitarianism lives. For limited government, and our liberty, to prevail, God must win in America. If God is struck from our schools, from our media, and from our everyday life we have little hope. It is a choice between God or government.

Gun Violence

Posted by Tim on

Its been a violent few weeks in America. First we had the shooting in Aurora Colorado when a man gunned down people in a packed theater. Later, in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a neo-Nazi entered a Sikh Temple and shot peaceful worshipers as well as a police officer. Then just a day ago, a man fired  multiple shots outside the Empire State building in New York. These cases rightfully make big news, but its sad to realize how many more cases are swept under the rug by the media.

I'll give up my guns when they give up theirs.

I’ll give up my guns when they give up theirs.

Just this past Thursday (8/23/12)  19 people were left with gun wounds in Chicago, 13 of them in the same 30 minutes. A drive-by shooting on the south side of Chicago killed eight alone; including 7 men and one women, ages ranging 14-20. This past year Chicago has been the most deadly city in America. In fact, in late June, 44 people were shot in the same weekend. Why are some cases heard about non-stop for a week, but others only for a short news blip? Politics.

The difference between mass shootings like those in Colorado or Wisconsin and gang shootings in ghettos is clear to the naked eye. Mass shootings affect the average American, whereas gang shootings affect only the poor. Unless you live in the ghetto, the chance of a drive-by happening in your neighborhood is slim. But mass shootings seem to happen in middle America; nice theaters, white middle class schools, etc. I can avoid getting shot by a gang just by avoiding certain areas of town, but how can I avoid being shot at in a movie theater? The scare factor is much higher with mass shootings.

Because these mass shootings happen primarily to white middle class Americans, (the biggest voting block) the media goes to extra length to sensationalize the event. We must do something! We need to pass a law! People who look like you and live where you live are being killed! Voters hear this and vote with their emotions. Something is wrong; we need a law to fix it.

The media doesn’t cover those Chicago shootings nearly as much. The story there doesn’t involve regular people, and the end game isn’t the same. A drive-by shooting in Chicago doesn’t evoke people’s emotions, and doesn’t make people want to pass new gun laws. And even if they did, the fact is that Chicago already has bans on handguns. That’s right. In a city where guns are banned, gun crime is at its highest. Political gain for the left wing anti-gun lobby cannot be made by covering Chicago crime.

But here we are again. Calls for more gun control or outright bans on firearms are heard on any channel covering the news. Whether its a leftist station like MSNBC or even Fox News. Bill O’Reilly, who many wrongly trumpet as a conservative, called for gun registration and even talked about ammunition registration as possible solutions for gun crime. The most watched cable news show, “the Factor”, can be lumped in with the rest; craving ratings and more laws and failing to deal with the facts.

But what can be done about these shootings? In the case of random mass murderers, no law can prevent it. The best thing we as Americans can do is exercise our 2nd amendment rights and carry concealed weapons. If I have a gun on me and I see someone in trouble, I’m going to help; whether its an old lady being robbed by a common hoodlum or a crowd of people being shot at by a madman. Allow and encourage people to carry concealed. It will create a self-defense mentality and will make criminals think twice about shooting up a movie theater.

Its ironic that laws have actually caused much of the crime in inner cities. When alcohol was prohibited from 1920-1933 in the United States, mafias were quick to get into the alcohol business. Alcohol related crime was sky high. Is it any surprise that now that we’re prohibiting other drugs more gangs are popping up? Gang activity thrives on drug dealing because they are the only source for it. By making these drugs legal, gangs would no longer have a strong-hold on the inner cities that suffer so much of their violence.

The answer – less government, and fewer laws. Less “gun control” that prevents people from defending themselves. Less of the “war on drugs” that gives power and money to violent gangs and cartels.

VIDEO: Milton Friedman in 2006

Posted by Tim on

One of the greatest economic minds of the last 100 years, Milton Friedman had a gift for not only being brilliant in his field, but also having the communication skills to talk with the layman. Here’s one of Friedman’s last appearances, an hour long interview at Hillsdale College in 2006. He died later that year.

Economics of Athletes’ Salaries

Posted by Tim on

I had a couple of conversations with people recently about politics. One was with a Democrat friend who mentioned something about sports stars being paid too much. In a sense I agree with him. It is kind of silly that we almost idolize athletes, yet almost no one can name any famous scientists from the last 20 years. Why are baseball players who just play a stupid game getting paid millions of dollars, while other people who do actual work are getting paid barely enough to get by?

As much as I agree with him about the emphasis that our culture (and many other cultures as well, by the way) places on sports, I really don’t let it get to me. A basic understanding of how free markets work, and an non-emotional perspective cures all. Just because something may seem wrong to us, doesn’t mean that we are the ones to change it, and certainly doesn’t mean that government should get involved.

The reason, plain and simple, that professional athletes get paid so much is because athletes are the same as any other resource. There is a high demand for great sports stars, and there aren’t that many of them out there. Therefore, the players good enough to play for the NBA, MLB, or NFL can demand a higher pay. Economics 101 – supply and demand. This may seem morally wrong to some people. But we live in a free society, and if a team wants to pay millions of dollars on their players, so be it. It doesn’t affect anyone else.

Going a little further down the line, we see that if these players are great, they end up making the sports franchise money. For instance – Bret Favre may be paid a lot, but imagine how many jerseys that guy sells. A better player means more jersey sales. The same goes for ticket sales, TV ratings which leads to advertising deals, and a hundred other things. If a team suddenly realized that they paid too much for an athlete, they would cut his pay next time his contract was up for negotiating. But its up to that business, the sports team; not us.

Of course, in the end – it might be up to us. The free market works as a natural organic democracy. Every time we buy a product or service, we are voting with our dollar bills. If someone really doesn’t like their sports team spending so much money on players, then don’t buy the tickets and don’t watch the game.

If we keep looking at the pay rates of athletes, we see that its not just those athletes who benefit from their high salaries. Those players go and have houses built for them, they buy nice cars, and they eat at fancy restaurants. The carpenter who built his house, the car salesman who sold him his car, and the waitress who served him his food were all benefitted because of the money that the team spent on him. The team was only looking out for itself, trying to get the best player; but it ended up helping many other people at the same time.

This is the way the free market works; what Adam Smith referred to as the “Invisible Hand”. The free market works in a way that allows everyone to prosper even as they look out only for their own self interest. For someone to come in and decide that they know whats best and that their morals are superior would only mess things up; ruining a system that has brought millions of people out of poverty around the world.

Nudged Off a Cliff

Posted by Tim on

People often say that the politicians in Washington don’t listen to the people. They are too disconnected with their constituents. The very people who put them in office have no idea what they are doing until the next election. One of the problems is that each of these politicians represents too many people. If you ever try to call your Representative or Senator, there is a pretty good chance you’ll just talk with one of their assistants. And even at a town hall meeting you’ll be lucky to get a question in, and even luckier if you get a straight answer.

On the other hand, our local politicians are easy to work with. I know my State Senator and Representative. I even have their phone numbers saved in my phone, and when I call they talk with me. One of them actually gave me his home number, and a few years ago was walking the neighborhoods himself knocking on doors. My representative is my neighbor, and if I have a real problem with something he does, I can wander over a few blocks and have a word with him myself.

This is the natural of politics. The people in Washington serve too many interests, and are kept far away from the effects of their policies. They are, by nature, disconnected. Local officials are just that – local. This is the beauty behind federalism, and the genius behind the Constitution. The bozos in Washington aren’t supposed to be passing the laws that effect our day-to-day lives. Those laws are supposed to be passed by our local politicians.

The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that any powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution are not theirs to exercise. They of course do have some powers – regulating interstate commerce, regulating international trade, providing for the nation’s defense, and collecting taxes to pay for these duties. But that’s pretty much it.

The politicians in Washington have no Constitutional reason to be interfering with our schools, our healthcare, our drug policies, or our environment. Those duties are to be left to the states or to individual citizens. And there is good reason for this. The federal government only passes big blanket laws for all 50 states. But who is to say that what is good for someone in South Carolina is also good for someone in Colorado? But that’s just what happens. A Congressperson from a single state will put forth a bill that has benefits for his own state, but that will hurt someone else’s.

This is obviously a terrible thing. We have people from different sides of the country deciding whats best for each other, and no one is looking out for the people in between. If these crooks would read and listen to the Constitution, they’d realize that the laws they are voting on don’t have any Constitutional standing, but that doesn’t happen. Special interests, labor unions, and plenty of people with their hands out, all make donations; either with their ballot or their checkbook. Its sad,  and very disheartening.

Rand Paul

Rand Paul

The only thing set up to stop this kind of behavior is the Constitution, the document that all politicians swear to uphold. But if everyone is breaking the rules, nobody notices. Little by little, States’ rights are disappearing, individuals have less liberty to make decisions in their own lives, and our so-called Republic shifts away from the ideas of the founders towards a top-down centralized all-powerful federal government. Is there any hope? Not really.

With Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan, Republicans are in a great mood. But everyone forgot about Ryan’s real record. As a fellow blogger points out, Ryan voted FOR TARP, FOR the auto bailout, FOR the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages, FOR Head Start and No Child Left Behind, FOR extending unemployment, and FOR the Patriot Act. Why is everyone so gung-ho about Paul Ryan? He’s no conservative, and even with the Ryan Budget we still increase spending!

He can talk a good talk, and help Romney win, but both of these guys believe in the power of the federal government. Spending will keep spiraling out of control. Everyone is happy that instead of being thrown off a cliff, we’ll be nudged off a cliff. Not good enough for me. We don’t need to slow down, we need to turn around! My only hope is that these guys will delay the dive overboard long enough to get a Constitutional Conservative in office. Rand Paul? Are your ears burning?

Eric Hovde for US Senate

Posted by Tim on

I already posted my announcement to endorse Eric Hovde for the Wisconsin US Senate seat a while back. I gave a few positives for each candidate, and essentially called it a two-man race, between Eric Hovde and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. As of late, Mark Neumann has closed the gap, and Jeff Fitzgerald has picked up a few points as well. With all that going on, I still stand behind Eric Hovde, and for anyone still on the fence, I want to express why.

Each candidate has positives and negatives. No politician will ever be perfect on every issue, and that’s just the nature of the game. Tommy’s positives may be that he is very experienced, not only on the state level, but also as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. That certainly gives him a leg up – perhaps he won’t be the typical “freshman” Senator. His experience with healthcare could also be an asset when we repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reforms.

But to me, the most important issue is where Eric Hovde stands head and shoulders above his opponents (especially Tammy Baldwin, I should add). Not just today, but over the next 10 years, the domestic issue we will face is cutting our government’s spending, eliminating the deficit, and slowly whittling away at our national debt. These are the issues where a Senator with a background in economics comes in handy.

Paul Ryan, one of the most controversial politicians in Washington, is leading the fighting for fiscal sanity. He is chairman of the House Budget Committee, and is the brain behind the fight to reform Americas costly entitlement programs. Ryan needs a partner in the Senate he can count on, and while Ron Johnson is doing the job just fine – two is better than one. Paul Ryan went to college and earned a B.A. in economics. Eric Hovde went to college and studied… that’s right – economics. If we want a parallel to Paul Ryan in the Senate, Eric Hovde could very well fill that position.

I think the thing I like most about Hovde is that he isn’t from politics. He doesn’t come from a family of politicians, the Bush family or the Kennedys. He comes from a private sector background – starting a business at 24 years old and working to become a millionaire, supposedly being valued at around $150 million. He knows business. He knows economics. If we want to get our business climate turned around, and if we want to start paying off our debt, we need Hovde.

Some people may not feel comfortable with a candidate who is so wealthy. There’s another way to look at it though. If there is someone out there who is willing to give up their prominent position in the private sector making millions of dollars, and trade it in for a Senate seat earning significantly less money – he’s doing it for the right reasons. Hovde isn’t running for Senate to earn money; he already has plenty of that. He’s running so he can help save our country.

Furthermore, because he is able to finance his own campaign, he doesn’t need to make backdoor deals with his fundraisers. Eric Hovde’s biggest fundraiser is Eric Hovde – not some labor union, not “the rich” or “the poor”, not whites or blacks or hispanics. He can go to Washington and do what he says he’ll do, without having to answer to some company who gave him large campaign contributions. He specifically talks about these kinds of seedy arrangements that distort our free market system.

For all the reasons above, I’m still sticking with Eric Hovde. He’ll get my vote on Tuesday, August 14th, and I hope he gets yours as well.

Recommended Reading (8/5/12)

Posted by Tim on

Competition is the force which drives improvement. In some ways its very obvious – competition in the automobile market pushes manufacturers to provide better products at lower prices. In other ways its not so obvious. If the Russians hadn’t competed with the Americans in the Olympics during the Cold War, they never would have invented steroids, which today are used by countless American athletes – hitting home runs and scoring touchdowns – keeping us entertained all year round. Yes, competition is the key.

Speaking of Russians and those ultra-competitive Olympics of the Cold War era, much of what they pioneered in weight training we are still using today. The most common training templates used today by America’s top powerlifters were written about decades ago by Soviet trainers. In more recent times, Vladimir M Zatsiorsky has written Science and Practice of Strength Training.

Zatsiorsky worked with the Soviets for 26 years, training literally hundreds of top-level athletes. Currently he teaches kinesiology at Penn State (let’s just avoid the Sandusky conversation, shall we?), but he also holds honorary degrees from universities in Poland and Russia. He’s authored over a dozen books, and his works have been published in English, Russian, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, and other languages.

In Strength Training, Zatsiorsky delivers a complex analysis of the actual science of training. The book is full of charts and graphs, showing the effects of various training intensities, timings, and muscle recruitment. No matter the goal, whether it be strength, size, endurance, or speed, Zatsiorsky and, more importantly, science have the answers. Instead of just giving the reader a mindless training schedule, he gives you the knowledge needed to create your own – the right way. Along with the science, Zatsiorsky gives specific recommendations for certain populations – women, the elderly, and young athletes – and he also includes some tips for injury prevention.

If every trainee, or just every ignorant personal “trainer”, read this book there would be a lot less confusion about how to train for any desired effect. Too often young people go searching the internet forums for an answer to their troubles and all too often they get a bunch of hogwash, and end up just wasting time, if not money as well. Instead of that – buy this book, read it, and apply it. It’ll change the way you look at strength training forever.

On another note, I haven’t had a ton of time to sit down and watch this year’s Olympics, but I did manage to catch some women’s weight lifting last week. A 17 year old girl from Kazakistan weighing 116 lbs lifted 270 lbs over her head like it was nothing. I died a little inside. Really? She’s younger than me, smaller than me, a girl, and she’s way stronger than me. How’d that happen?

Overspending: Individuals vs Government

Posted by Tim on

Let’s suppose for a minute that there is a man named Jim. Jim is an accountant at a bank and earns right around $40,000 a year – an income that he uses to provide a house for himself, as well as food, clothing, and a little entertainment here and there. But Jim has a spending problem. He recently bought a $100,000 Lexus SUV, a new Sony flat screen TV, and every weekend (and some weekday afternoons) he spends hundreds of dollars at the local strip club. Jim, despite earning enough money to live a reasonable life, is now in debt. Deep in debt.

In fact, Jim is so deep in debt that his credit card debt alone is more than his annual income of $40,000! That’s not counting all the other debt he’s built up – car loan, house loan, unpaid student loans. Sounds like Jim needs to stop spending, right? WRONG! Jim isn’t at fault. It’s the fault of his employer for not paying him enough.

That is the kind of situation we have right now with the US federal government. The big spenders in Washington refuse to admit that they might have problem living within their means. Instead, they blame the American people for not paying enough in taxes. They don’t spend too much; you just don’t pay enough! Its an absurd notion when you break it down to an individual level and use “Jim” as an analogy. But its actually worse than that – here’s why.

Jim doesn’t have the ability to spend his employer’s money before he’s earned it. Jim can put himself in debt, but he can’t put his employer, much less his employer’s children, in debt. And when Jim eventually files for bankruptcy, only Jim is hurt – not his employer. Who is the employer of the federal government? That’s right – we are. The citizens of the US are the employers of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, and right now those politicians and bureaucrats are putting the debt on us. And it gets worse.

Not only are we in debt, but it will be harder and harder to pay it off. Jim doesn’t have the power to devalue his employer’s money. He can’t go out and print more, then spend it, and come back 10 years later with $1 being worth $.90! But that is exactly what our government is doing right now. Not only are we in debt – so much that we won’t pay it off in our lifetime and it will be left for our children – but our dollars will be worth less and less because of uncontrolled printing of money.

It is a sickening thought, and its no surprise that the national debt is one of the big issues in the upcoming election. To think that some people out there spend too much money and then explain away their reckless behavior by claiming that we haven’t given them enough of our earnings, and that’s why they’re in debt – what an insult! Sorry, big government! You don’t have a right to my money – which in turn is my labor. We as citizens have a duty to fund the legitimate functions of government spelled out in the Constitution. No more, no less. And the truth is that 90% of what our federal government does has no Constitutional standing per the 10th amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserves to the states respectively, or to the people.” Any government agency not spelled out in the constitution has no place in the federal government and ought to be left to be run by the states. Department of education, department of energy, enviromental protection agency, the federal communications commission, the list goes on and on. Its no wonder that those guys are in debt! They are spending money like Jim – on expensive things that they don’t need. But Jim only hurts himself – our government hurts all of us.