Who Owns Compassion?

Is compassion a zero sum commodity? If I am compassionate, does that naturally limit your capacity for compassion? We’ve been told time after time that the American people are the most giving, most compassionate people on earth. People who love liberty believe that this compassion springs from two sources. U.S. citizens have historically attended churches or synagogues more frequently than their European brethren, and free market capitalism has endowed Americans with large amounts of disposable income. If it’s true that Americans are more compassionate than other people of the world (there are data that support this), then why does our government insist on taking over that function from us? The mindless, heartless entity that we call the federal government believes that it should tax us more and borrow more money to engage in compassion.

This past week I heard a startling fact that there are eighty-two (82) federal programs for the homeless. Huh? If my memory serves me right, the government has spent much more than $5 trillion on the War on Poverty in the past 50 years. A cursory examination of the data would reveal that the percentage of those living in poverty is roughly the same today as it was when LBJ’s grand initiative was spawned. It would appear that the only true net benefit of the anti-poverty effort has been to increase the membership for public employee unions….and union contributions to the Democrats. The party of wanton spending receives massive sums from the public unions and holds on to power to create more government programs…and hire more government employees…who join the union. OK, you get the idea. Let’s call it “Compassiongate.” Nothing really changes when government attempts to display compassion except that Democrats and union bosses get wealthier.

In this time of huge debt and massive deficits, for government to be a player in the compassion business when the most generous population on earth is ready, willing and able to fill the role is silly. We know from experience that whenever government intrudes into an arena, it tends to drive out the private sector and ends with a virtual monopoly. In some respects government compassion has minimized private sector involvement, but those stubborn big-hearted citizens and churches will not give up. My personal belief is that many progressives encourage government participation in the world of compassion because they want to protect the poor from those “demeaning Gospel messages” that are part and parcel of poverty ministries. In addition there is the assumption by promoters of big government that government is the only entity that can handle the scale of the poverty problem…and is the only actor who can do it fairly.

As anyone with a scintilla of mental capacity can attest, government monopoly does not enhance efficiency or effectiveness. Government is the one element of the economic universe where there is no advantage to the economy of scale. In fact, most of us can observe that the larger the government operation becomes, the more inefficient that it is. Many times I have written in these columns that government has no mind, no heart and no soul. To expect government to dole out measures of compassion in a way that solves problems for individuals is folly. It cannot. Compassion is not its role. Compassion is not the nature of government, and helping people who are down and out is beyond the capacity of government and its lethargic bureaucracy.

If we as a people truly wish to help those who are in need, then we will do it ourselves by pulling the plug on irresponsible and misguided public programs. The funds could be used for debt retirement (if we can trust our venal political operatives to do what’s right), or returned to the taxpayers and would result in more disposable income for Americans to give…or not. They will help when the need is real. If we continue to allow government to monopolize and define compassion, those who need help will continue to suffer, and we will have forfeited another piece of our individual humanity.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

The Real Deficit

The national deficit is a big deal…a really big deal. Our nation has spent $14 Trillion more than receipts. That huge figure, however, does not include the state and local government indebtedness with is usually in the form of municipal bonds. The bottom line is that our governments are in the hole and continue to dig. Over the decades that they have been irresponsibly spending, our lives have not improved because of government action or intervention. They have used borrowed funds to implement programs that are costly and ineffective as well as generally unconstitutional. They have spewed out promises and commitments that will be impossible to fulfill. They have radically distorted the nature of the United States by taking assets from many to give to others in a wanton effort to buy their votes. They have violated the public trust by being untrustworthy.

Despite the fact that our financial debts and deficits are so massive, they do NOT represent the greatest deficits for our nation. We have a huge deficit of character and leadership. The people whom we have selected or elected to guide our nation through good times and bad have been miserable failures. Their lack of character has prompted them to take the easy paths when confronting difficult issues and problems. Their absent character has led them to mislead the people time after time when they know that what they were saying was false. Their lack of character has caused them to create problems where none exist, and then, to offer unrealistic solutions for those mythical difficulties. Lacking character, they return to us every two, four or six years and ask to return to their respective offices so that they can continue to hoodwink us while they plunder our wealth and the national treasury.

The leadership deficit is nearly as damaging as the one for character. I say “nearly” because if we had people of character in positions of responsibility, our need for inspired leadership would not be so great. Given that character is in such short supply, our need for sound, honest leadership is an absolute necessity. Leaders are willing to face the arrows when difficulties arise. Leaders give the people honest appraisals when the situation is dim. Leaders truthfully identify the problems and offer reasonable realistic remedies. Leaders do not ask the people to sacrifice more to cover the politicians’ mistakes. Leaders do not propose solutions that undermine the liberty of those they lead.

Lest we become too partisan in this discussion, please think of this. When someone proposes spending a billion dollars of money we do not have, remember that the person who suggests spending only half of a billion shows no character or leadership…just cowardice and sleaziness. The politician is sleazy because she or he wants you to congratulate them for holding down deficit spending. Both types lack character and leadership. Both types are dishonest. Both should be denounced and defeated. Our country, our states, our communities and our schools have reached the point where we can no longer afford half measures. Either those who consider themselves leaders…act like leaders…with honesty, integrity and character, or get out of the way because we’ll run you over as we take back our country.

People of character must step forward. Citizens of character must vote for them, work for them and pray for them. Good looks and intelligence are not enough anymore. Cunning politicians who know how to win locally then move on to state and national office are not the formula for redeeming our nation and its honor. We need candidates who tell the truth, and who are not afraid to face the music. We need candidates who cherish the Constitution and personal liberty. We must end the character and leadership deficits that we have today. We must not linger. We must do it now.

Comments;  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Ownership Issues

So you work, day in and day out, and manage to set aside some property to generate an income for you and your loved during your golden years. Along comes the local government which increases the taxes on your property. The local political leaders come again and tell you that certain activities are forbidden on your property. Another local government decides to run a new sidewalk and sewer line across your property thereby presenting you with an invoice for $17,500.00. You had a mortgage on the property. You made timely payments for twenty years, yet your rights to your property are limited and usurped by the whims of local governments and other property owners. So, who owns YOUR property?

In addition to its better known prohibition against forcing one to testify against one’s own interests, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Framers generally agreed that a citizen owned his or her life, her or his own labor, and his or her property. They understood that true freedom was a pipe dream if people could not hold and control those three fundamental elements. It is obvious that freedom has no value if your life can be forfeited at any time. Likewise, if someone or some government can force you to labor for their interests, you have become a slave. Property, the harvested fruit of your labor, must be protected from immoral and illegal “takings,” or you can be likened to a serf or share cropper.

Frederic Bastiat in his magnificent essay, The Law, writes that “a transmission of wealth imposed by force…is…a violation of property” and the law is guilty of “organizing injustice.”  As Bastiat expresses so clearly, because something is legal doesn’t necessarily make it moral or just. Laws that fail to recognize property rights are as unjust and immoral as those that would enslave us or murder us. There are those among us who believe that property does not hold the same exalted position as our lives and labor. They may argue that property should be held in common….that all people should have access to all property so that no one would hold a distinct advantage in wealth and property over others who were not so fortunate. Liberty, however, is the ability to live one’s life the way that one desires without negatively impacting the lives of others in harmful ways. The freedom to live as one desires necessarily requires access to and ownership of property to assure that the individual is truly liberated.

It may be true that every citizen may not be capable of acquiring meaningful property, but the state and his fellow citizens should not restrict his capacity to do so, and should never impair his ability to hold and manage that which he has accumulated. If, dear reader, you believe that property is a minor consideration, take a drive through the inner city and observe the homeless with their shopping carts and bundles. These are people who by normal standards have nothing, yet they cherish and cling to their property with a passion rivaled by the most venal rich person. Their property means something to them. It has value for them.  God understands the importance of property in our lives. Exodus 20:15, “you shall not steal,” (NIV) says enough. When someone steals, it is preceded by someone “has.”

When the government at any level takes or controls your property, it is theft. When another person takes your property, they are often prosecuted. Government, however, exempts itself from morality and justice by passing laws to allow theft. It’s still theft. It’s still wrong. For example, let’s imagine that you have a beautiful grove of trees in your front lawn, and your neighborhood association decided that everyone should share your trees. Each of your neighbors would stop by with a shovel in hand and take a tree. After a time you would have no more trees, and the neighborhood association would vote to compel you to buy more trees. Of course, it’s a stupid scenario…but not all that farfetched. Government steals…sometimes with the consent of the majority. It is theft, and it occurs at every level of government. I’ll save a discussion of the Estate Tax for another time, but you get the idea. It is theft.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Leadership

One of the common themes surrounding extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth is “Take me to your leader.” Many people in the United States are asking, “Where is our leader?” Leadership is a rare and precious commodity. Good leaders inspire us and motivate us. Excellent leaders lead by example with character and humility. Leaders are neither anointed nor appointed. They emerge. They lead. They are not elected, but when we see one, she or he is detected. We know a leader when we encounter one. Some leaders are charismatic, but not all of them are. Some leaders look as if they were from central casting, but not all leaders look that way. As I examine our political “leadership,” I note a paucity of authentic leaders. When I look for leadership in the civil affairs of our nation, state and communities, here’s what I’m seeking.

When I look for a leader, I want a W.H.I.P….a person with wisdom, honesty, integrity and principles. If a cause is just, a leader will advocate for it even if the prospects are dim. A true leader does not wait for the sentiment of the audience or the public as a cue for becoming involved. The leader knows what is right and what is not. A leader chooses the right. A true leader does not look for the expedient way of doing something. Expediency is often confused with true leadership because the mass media and many citizens confuse leadership with “getting something done.” Historically, that approach has not served our nation as the expedient route has often led to unprincipled compromise.

This column is not intended to be the definitive word on leadership. Literally thousands of books, treatises  and columns have addressed the subject. Most have focused on a utilitarian approach wherein the leader‘s accomplishments are more important than the underlying principles that guide her or him. When selecting writers who believe that principled leadership is critical for organizations or governments, I prefer to read John C. Maxwell. Dr. Maxwell has penned more than 50 books while primarily focusing on principled and effective leadership. As a result of his work, I have no need to duplicate nor expand upon his ideas and formulas. My attempt to zero in on principle as a core function of leadership is simply to cast some light on how our nation and corporations have drifted into the present morass.

Wisdom, it seems to me, is sorely lacking among the so-called leaders in the United States today. It may be because of our nearly fanatical praise of youthful energy and zeal. It may be a result of our amazingly fast-paced technological innovation. The underlying assumption being that if you don’t “tweet,” you’re a dolt. Wisdom is a product of faith, discernment, knowledge and experience. Real wisdom is rarer than saber tooth tigers or dodo birds. Among our self-appointed leaders we find those who say the first thing that comes to mind as they pander to their listeners, but there is another group who hesitates to say anything definitively for fear of offending voters or constituencies. Wisdom includes the ability to speak truthfully in a manner that makes the truth unassailable. Wisdom doesn’t seek consensus. Wisdom generates consensus.

Honesty is honesty. There are no gray areas, no fudging. Honest leaders work with honest people, and honest people do not compromise principles for short term gain. Honesty is a major structural component of integrity which includes sincerity as well. It seems to me that we must have sincerely honest leadership for our nation to survive and thrive. Most of us are familiar with the old joke that a good politician can “sincerely fake sincerity.” As our people become more cynical and more skeptical, true leaders will find it difficult to shatter the clutter. That is the cost we pay for allowing our leaders to “fake it” without challenging them.

Principles are vital for a true leader. They must be deeply ingrained in her or his essence…core…being. Principles are more than ideas and certainly more enduring than feelings. Principles are rock solid, unmovable fundamental truths upon which one anchors his or her life. Principles create the platform from which all decision making begins. Principles are not the answers for most issues, but they are the starting point for discovering the solutions. Principles help the leader during stressful times by providing the basis for sound, honest and wise decisions. Let’s find true leaders, and let’s WHIP them into shape.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

 

Birth in a Nation

So, was President Barrack Obama born in the United States? I don’t know. Was he born in Kenya? I don’t know? Was he born in Indonesia? I don’t know? Is he a “pod baby” from the Planet Nimrod? I don’t know. Was he born? Apparently he was. A number of people in our nation are feverishly attempting to prove that Barrack Obama is not a natural born United States citizen. Constitutionally he would not be qualified to hold the office of president if he were not born as a citizen of the nation. That’s the rub…the bone of contention. Will the past two years be rewound if it can be proven that the president was not born in the U.S.? For the moment I don’t care.

If were proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States, then he would be illegally serving in the Office of the President. He would also be subject to some penalties including perjury and fraud.  So, if it were to be revealed tomorrow (3/8/2011), that the President was not qualified to serve, what is the remedy? Will he resign? That’s a laughable proposition. If he and his minions have worked so hard to hide the facts of his birth, it is highly unlikely that he would meekly resign and return to Chicago. Besides, his messiah complex has him convinced that only he can save the nation by destroying it and all the inequities that he believes are present. He would battle to the bitter end, issuing Executive order after Executive order in an effort to remake the country. His behavior would, in essence, be a non-military coup. I suspect that he might even consider suspending the election of 2012 or issue an Executive order changing the qualifications for president.

If the President will not resign given proof of his being a non-citizen, then the clear cut remedy is for the House of Representatives to initiate Articles of Impeachment. The process would not be lightning fast as an investigation would be required plus numerous hearings. I may be assuming too much here because I sincerely doubt that the GOP House leadership has the stomach for an impeachment effort. “Too divisive,” too close to the election,” too many difficult issues that require our attention,” will be the plaintive cries to justify House inaction. Oh yes, one more,”the Senate won’t convict, so why bother?”

That last excuse…about the Senate… may have merit. The dynamic dim bulb from Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid still holds the reins of control in the Senate.  In addition many of the Republican senators are less courageous than their cohorts in the House. The numbers and the reality of politics indicate that impeachment would be a long shot and conviction would be extremely unlikely. The unresolved nature of the issue would divide the country even further than it is now. In addition, the impeachment process, however meritorious it might be, would energize the Obama defenders.

To me it seems that the best alternative if it were proven that Obama was not legally qualified to be president is to have the various state boards of elections and legislators work to prevent him from getting ballot access. In the meantime, the full weight and power of the Congress could be focused on thwarting and repealing any of his orders. In essence, he would be isolated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I realize how risky it may be to leave the Marxist-leaning Democrat in office for the next 20 months, but given the painful lack of leadership in the Congress, it may be the least corrosive strategy.

For those who are chasing the holy grail of a missing birth certificate…forge on, work hard, get proof. For the Congress…blockade, repeal, de-fund. For the rest of us…pray, pray, pray.

Comments:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Shirts and Skins

Who has the “skin in the game?” That question defines the stakeholders in any confrontation or negotiation. It is the greatest problem or issue with public sector bargaining. “Skin’ is also germane for huge corporations and their labor negotiating processes. Does the negotiator or arbitrator who represents the government or the company have a stake in the outcome? A reasonable bargaining process must involve two parties who can either gain or lose in order for an equitable solution that does not drastically favor one side more than the other.

Although I have problems with national and international labor organizations, I am not opposed to local organizing per se. If workers are dissatisfied with their conditions or pay, they inherently and constitutionally have the right to organize (1^st Amendment, peaceable assembly). If their grievances are legitimate, and management/ownership fears losing their knowledge, experience and expertise, then they’ll work out a solution. On the other hand, management may conclude that they can replace the entire workforce with others and therefore fire all of the former employees. In this scenario both parties have “skin in the game.” The owners or managers want to continue production at a profitable level while the workers wish to retain their jobs but under improved circumstances.

There are private sector negotiations where the corporate leadership assumes the same role as do public sector officials. When bargaining takes place in huge corporate environments, the representatives for the company are employees or consultants who have limited personal stakes in the outcome. Just like their political brethren, they are more likely to “give away the candy store” in order to maintain peace and goodwill. Except for the highly skilled trades, there is no obvious reason for large corporations or government entities to succumb to the demands of the unions. Some negotiators, however, have minimal financial or emotional investment in the company or governmental entity, and thus, seek the fastest means for resolving the issues. Other negotiators may have the public interest as their paramount concern, but could be undermined by politicians who would rather “cave.” The corporate officers who may be engaged in the negotiating process are aware that if they fail to protect the interests of the company, they’ll receive their golden parachute and surface with another corporation or retire to Aruba. The people responsible for the political bargaining process trust that their citizens will have short memories. They believe that irresponsible concessions are less damaging for them politically than a strike, shutdown or slowdown might be.

While collective bargaining for public employees does have potential for fiscal abuse, the more onerous element is the “binding arbitration” requirement. Arbitrators are people too. They want to be liked. They want to be employed. If negotiations stall and either side requests arbitration, then the process calls for both sides to agree on an arbitrator. The arbitrator goes through a “fact finding” process and makes a determination that is binding for both sides. The arbitrator is generally limited to the two proposals submitted by the competing sides. It becomes an “either or” situation.  Again, the only “skin” in the game for the arbitrator is the desire to be gainfully employed to arbitrate a future dispute. The arbitrator’s motives may be pure, but self-interest can be an unintended persuader.

Who does have the “skin in the game?” Clearly for public sector bargaining the taxpayers are the ones whose well-being should be weighed against the benefits for the union members. The current mess that exists for so many states and local governments came about because concern for the taxpayers was a secondary consideration. The political class and the arbitrators (when used) were more focused on avoiding discord and strife than they were as stewards of the public treasury. Consequently, benefit and wage packages have grown to the point that the state and local governments are in perilous financial circumstances. Understandably, public employees become irate when efforts are made to bring their packages into sync with financial reality. As the public employees grouse and protest, the taxpayers become more aggravated and hostile.  The tension will continue to build all across the nation as those who do have “skin in the game” draw their lines in the sand in a hostile environment.

In Ohio as in most states, our present circumstances can be laid at the feet of previous legislators who lacked the courage and the wisdom to say “no.” They passed the legislation that gave public sector unions a stranglehold on state and local budgets. No such “negotiated contract rights” exist at the federal level. Former legislatures took the easy route by granting extraordinary powers to public sector unions, and now their lousy decisions have caused the fiscal situations to reach critical mass. It’s the same old story. Our state and federal elected officials have no real skin in the game, and the taxpayers lose their shirts.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/