Tag Archives: big government

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.

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.

Santorum and Porn?

Posted by Tim on

NOTE: I’ve held onto this post and resisted publishing it. My home state of Wisconsin is voting soon, and I didn’t want to give any extra negative attention to Rick Santorum. BUT, I’ve decided that keeping posts private for the sole purpose of helping a candidate is something that would compromise my personal integrity. While this post may hurt Santorum, in the end, he hurt himself. Keep in mind, that while I’m ranting about Rick, I’m still voting for him on April 3rd, and I urge everyone else to do the same. 

I’ve been very open about this – I’m voting for Rick Santorum in the Wisconsin primary, and if he’s the nominee I’ll gladly vote for him against Barry Obama. I like where he stands on a lot of issues. He’s a strong supporter of Israel, he’s proposed a great tax plan to bring back manufacturing jobs to America, and he’s a hero among the Pro-Life crowd. All that being said, there are still a few things that make me shake my head about him. The most recent – “ban porn”.

So much for free markets, ey? Rick’s plan to crack down of “hardcore” pornography isn’t real far fetched. He’s a family-man. He’s a practicing Catholic, and is big on family values. I can understand Rick not liking porn and the porn industry. He has strong values, and I can see why he’s against porn. He’s also brought up the fact that porn can cause problems in relationships, and can negatively affect the brain. While I’m not sure these are really “facts”, I’ll give Rick and his researchers the benefit of the doubt.

All that being said – okay. Porn is bad. BUT… that’s his opinion. There are a lot of things that are “bad”. That doesn’t mean we ban them. Cigarettes are bad. They cause so many deaths that we can measure the deaths by the minute. Why aren’t we banning cigarettes? Come on, Rick. This isn’t a path you want to go down. Are you in favor of the free market, or not?

As I discussed HERE, banning a product, whether its drugs or porn, doesn’t eliminate it. It pushes it to a black market, where the dangers are far worse. Instead of a (relatively) clean porn enviroment, we’d have a completely unregulated “black market” of porn. Does this mean little kids getting involved? Doesn’t this mean people who are filmed without their permission? Keep it legal so we can monitor it and regulate it.

This is by no means a pro-porn post. I’m indifferent on the subject. What someone does in their free time is none of my business. Frankly, I don’t want to know. Some people may say that porn is ruining relationships, and that may be true. There might be cases where it actually helps relationships though. In the end, its each individual’s responsibility to make their own choices.

The thing that frightens me about Rick’s stance on this is that its very similar to a utopian mindset. “If only we could pass enough laws and control people’s behavior, we could create a utopia!” Banning things for “people’s own good” is what the left does. Banning porn is no different than banning guns, banning sugary foods, or banning light bulbs. Let the market work, let people make their own decisions. The government has no place censoring the internet, or magazines people get. Come on, Rick.

The Contraception Debate

Posted by Tim on

I received a phone call today from a good friend who I hadn’t talked to in some time. We’d texted back and forth for a few minutes, but he decided to call me. He wanted my opinion. He’d been getting into an argument over the whole contraceptive issue that’s been all the craze. Now, it was a Facebook argument, so there’s a big no-no right away. It’s nearly impossible to win an argument via Facebook, which is why I rarely get involved. For me, the most important place to voice my opinion is here, on TimPreuss.com, where I can say everything I need to say, without bickering back and forth with idiots.

As we were talking I said something along the lines of, “I could write an essay about everything wrong with that argument.” Well – I’m going to. That argument is the one we’ve been hearing about constantly over the past couple weeks. It’s the issue of contraception, and who should pay for it.

Before I get too deep into the issue, I want to go over what the issue is NOT. No one is saying that women should not be allowed to buy birth control. No one is saying that birth control is wrong, or that every woman who is on birth control is a slut. (Limbaugh reference?) In fact, conservatives like myself fully support the right of women to chose whether or not to use birth control, and what type to use. It’s their body, it’s their money – buy whatever you want.

Here’s the first hold up – taxpayer dollars should not be spent on birth control. Our government spends way too much money. We spend too much on entitlement programs, we spend too much on union labor, and we spend too much on useless, yet expensive, bureaucrats. It is not the government’s job to provide birth control pills for anyone. Furthermore, it’s not the government’s job to provide healthcare, period. People may insist that birth control is used for more than just birth control (cramps, acne, whacked out hormones, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that it’s a problem for the federal government to deal with.

In the end, it’s each individual’s responsibility to provide for themselves. I know, that’s a startling concept, given that literally from cradle to grave, we have our government “looking out” for us. Can’t feed yourself? Food stamps. Can’t buy medical care? Medicaid. Can’t educate yourself? Public schools and public scholarships. Can’t retire? Social security. Well, the gravy train has to come to a halt. When we encourage people to live off the government, we make people dependent. A person cannot be dependent AND free.

The other equally large issue at hand is that government should not be able to tell an employer or an insurance company what they have to provide. Some people complain that their insurance doesn’t cover contraception. Well, it’s time to find an insurance plan that suits your needs. There are thousands of options, and its more than likely that one of them will include covering birth control. But its the insurance company’s right to decide what their plans will cover and won’t cover. No one, including the federal government, should be able to tell a business what products they produce. If an insurance company doesn’t want to pay for birth control, that’s their decision, and if customers don’t like it, don’t buy that brand of insurance.

But the issue doesn’t stop there. Not only is the government telling insurance companies what they have to cover, but they’re telling employers what insurance plans they have to provide for their employees. If an employer only offers a plan that doesn’t include coverage for birth control, the employee can either buy insurance independently of their employer, or they can find a new job. A business should not be forced to provide something it does not want to provide.

And there’s more. Not only do businesses have to provide insurance that covers contraception, but even religious institutions have to provide it. This creates huge problems. The Catholic church is 100% against birth control. I don’t agree with their stance personally, but it’s their religion, and we have religious freedom. (I think.) The government cannot force a religious institution to provide birth control for their employees, if birth control is against their religion. This sets enormous precedent. No longer are you free to practice your religion. First, you must practice Obama, THEN practice your religion if it complies with Obama’s vision for America.

The issue at hand is much more than birth control. It has to do with the size of government, freedom of religion, and the ever growing entitlement mentality in America. Do not dismiss this as a minor issue – it’s important. Very important. The founding principles of our nation are at stack – personal responsibility, small limited government, religious freedom. Don’t push this issue under the rug or underestimate it’s importance.

The Lunch Police

Posted by Tim on
Junk Food - It's okay for them, but not for you.

Junk Food - It's okay for them, but not for you.

All first ladies have their little causes. Nancy Reagan had her “war on drugs”. Linda Bush had her crusades against stupid kids (good luck with that one). And Michelle Obama has child obesity. How touching, right? While her hubby deals with important concerns like cutting our national debt (wait a minute), this valuable White House mommy strikes up wars against cultural issues. Oh… how cute!

Turns out, that every time someone pushes their nose into our lives, whether it be Barry or his ugly wife, Michelle, a little more of our freedom is trampled on. The latest news story – the lunch police. Here – read up:

RAEFORD – School and state officials say a misunderstanding resulted in a West Hoke Elementary School preschooler’s homemade lunch being replaced with chicken nuggets.

An agent from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education was at the school Jan. 30 assessing the pre-kindergarten program, said Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction for Hoke County schools.

The agent examined the lunches for the six students in the class and believed one did not meet nutritional requirements spelled out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Barnes said.

According to the USDA, schools are required to provide lunches that include one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

The 4-year-old, whose name was not released, brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice.

The Department of Health and Human Services declined to say which requirement was not provided in the child’s lunch.

The girl thought she had to go through the lunch line for a new meal, Barnes said.

By the way – that clever little piece was taken from http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/lunch-52587-barnes-child.html

Now, the article goes on to say “we aren’t trying to be the lunch police”, but if that’s not what they’re doing, what ARE they doing? Why are there federal agents in pre-schoolers’ lunch bags? I know, I know – to look out for the children. Well, apparently, the government knows best, and will step right in front of parents to lead the way. Michelle Obama and her obesity goons now have their hands all over your child’s lunch.

It’s the little things that make up life. Things like taking pride in making your child’s lunch in the morning. Well, parenting is no longer the job of parents. From cradle to grave – the government will take care of you. The government will tell you what to feed your child, what to teach your child, and how to discipline your child. You, as a parent, are being stripped of your rights. Ain’t it great? No responsibility! No concerns! The government will be here to hold your hand…

Trade-Offs and Entitlements

Posted by Tim on

It’s my position as a conservative that there is no utopia that humans will ever attain. Life is a series of trade-offs. You trade one thing for another, and try to get the best deal. This is true not only for big government agencies, but also for individuals. That’s why it’s best for each individual to make their own decisions about virtually every aspect of life. The obvious exceptions would be actions that hurt other people (murder, for instance).

When we control these decisions for ourselves we are free. Whether it be simple things like whether you want ethanol in your gasoline or not, what type of lightbulbs you want to use, or what kind of guns you want to buy. It pertains to more complex things like what (if any) health insurance you want or how much of your check you want taken out for social “security”. When it comes down to it, it’s being free to chose what’s best for you.

But along with freedom comes responsibility. If you are free to decide whether you want health insurance or not, then that means that it’s also your responsibility to get it for yourself. It’s no one else’s job to provide it for you. Since FDR’s Raw Deal, I mean New Deal, our country has begun buying into the entitlement ideology. All of a sudden people became entitled to retirement funds (social security). Soon after elderly people became entitled to medical care (medicare). Then poor people were entitled to a helping hand (welfare), unemployed people were entitled to a safety net (unemployment benefits), and poor people were entitled to medical care (medicaid).

But with each of these programs people’s freedom slips away. Little by little, as our responsibility fades, so does our freedom. We no longer can chose whether or not we want social security; it comes out of our check automatically. The bummer for me is that by the time I’m old enough to cash in on what I’ve paid into social security, it’ll be bankrupt and gone. I’m getting screwed and so are a lot of other people!

And the new entitlement – Obamacare. Suddenly these supposed 40 million people who don’t buy their own insurance are entitled to it. But as soon as they become “entitled”, I become responsible for them. I already pay for my own health insurance, and now I have to pay for someone else’s? But who are these 40 million people? Well, a lot of them actually qualify for medicare and medicaid. A lot of the rest are illegal immigrants, and a bunch of the other people just don’t want health insurance. So, 40 million is quite the exaggeration.

And wait – if these people already qualify for medicaid, why do they need something else? Are you telling me that government run “medicaid” isn’t working? Are you telling me that “medicare” is broke? That’s right. These programs are not only failing in countries around the world, but they are actually failing in our own country. Medicaid is supposed to take care of the people who can’t afford health insurance, and guess what – it’s bankrupt. It failed. Care is not provided, many medical procedures aren’t covered, many medications aren’t covered. Exactly what’s happening in Canada and in Britain.

You see – there is no magic solution to our problems. We live in a flawed world, and a dream-world utopia is impossible. We just make trade offs. We trade price for quality and quantity. Lower the price of medical care, and you get less of it. People often wonder why US medical care costs so much. The reason is simple – we get more for what we pay. We have more doctors available, more medicines available, more beds available, more hospitals available. Compare that to countries like Britain where wait time for surgery is 6 months. Where you wait in a ward instead of in a private room. And where doctors aren’t available for appointments in a few days notice. Are these luxuries we’re willing to give up? A 6 month wait for surgery can be the difference between life and death. And it’s not a myth –  people are dying in countries with “universal” government-run healthcare.

It’s simple. Trade-offs. It’s economics. It’s reality. And when you start believing in some alternate reality, and ignore the laws of economics, which are the laws of scarcity, you don’t get to a utopia. Instead, ever-so slowly you drift into tyranny.