I recently learned the High School I graduated from in 1977; John F Kennedy in the Bronx has finally closed its doors. I say finally because it has taken an ugly journey all too common with government run programs.
I was in the second graduating class of JFK. I was one of only a few in my neighborhood that attended a public High School. Most of my friend’s parents paid for their kids to go to Catholic High Schools known for teaching and discipline that graduated students competent enough to get a job or go to college. Most public High Schools in NYC were incubators of failure. But JFK did not start that way. That is one of the reasons my parents risked sending their oldest son to the school.
The school was approved for funding based on promises made to the neighborhood residents that surrounded the campus. Our families were told that JFK would be different; if the school was built the neighborhood would be guaranteed a good education, and would not suffer the fate of most of the other public schools in the city. The school was built, and for the four years I attended, many of the promises were realized.
The first principal of JFK High School was impressive and he took a no nonsense approach to education. Show up or get thrown out. Teachers were encouraged to teach and supported in their efforts to do so. Security was heavy to ensure “kids” with ill intent were kept out of classrooms and not allowed on the school grounds. He kept some sense of order.
The kids from the neighborhood came from decent family backgrounds not typical of most students in the inner city. The advantage of having interested and engaged families that supported the principal’s goals was a good foundation for the school’s academic success. For a little while the school operated with relative success for a public High School in the Bronx.
Over the years the school exploded to house over 6000 students. It was built for approximately 4000. The neighborhood changed and the parental engagement was replaced with gang activity. Eventually this activity resulted in a student being murdered at the school. The school achieved the ranking of being the worst High School in New York City. An achievement that I am truly sad to report being an Alumnus. An attempt was made to take the school and divide it into 6 different schools with a focus on different disciplines. The attempt to salvage the school with this effort failed.
So the inner city is left with a building built with hope and promise sitting empty. The public school system has failed another generation of inner city kids that will have less opportunity than their peers. It is heartbreaking to watch. It is really personal for me having seen it first hand and knowing that the answer is to allow private institutions to teach these kids. The answer is not to keep rewarding public schools with our tax dollars. The answer is more complex than just poor schools but if we don’t change the schools we will never break the chain of hopelessness for these inner city kids. We will pay tenfold for the failures of these schools and government dependency.
When will enough be enough? I’m not talking about money because NYC public schools spend in the vicinity of $15,000 a year per student, well over the countries average. When will we face reality that we need a solution that does not count on government bureaucracy? When will we let educational entrepreneurs take a shot at educating these kids? What have we got to lose?
Government run schools and programs always start with good intentions. Government programs always deliver the same results; failure. The government has no soul and cares nothing about the lives they destroy as long as politicians and bureaucrats get paid and keep their jobs. Government has proven test after test that they don’t understand the material and will continue to fail no matter how you mix up the questions on the test. Government does not deserve our trust or the trust of these victims within our cities. They are the most vulnerable because they can’t pick up and go to a better school in a better neighborhood. We need to bring better schools to them through private organizations with a passion to teach.
Trying something new is the least we can do for these kids. As public schools become havens for gangs, drugs, and danger these kids are left to the squalor of government and politics. They deserve a better effort on our part and what is the worst that can happen? These kids get an education that can save them from a life of dependency on a government that has failed them for generations…
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Tenth Amendment Rendered Meaningless…
If the governors of these United States don’t start stepping up to the plate in a more aggressive manner, the Tenth Amendment to the United States will be rendered meaningless. The constitution is already on life support, and the Tenth Amendment is the critical arguing point in this battle between centralized tyranny and local independence.
I shudder when I hear governors groveling at the altar of the federal government as Governor Elect Nikki Haley of South Carolina recently did when she asked the president to “allow South Carolina to opt out” of the healthcare bill. This is not constitutional leadership. We need our governors to start studying the history of this nation and start employing the same arguments that were made then, resulting in the Bill of Rights including the Tenth Amendment.
I get perplexed when I read our history and compare the political fights we are having today. It is appalling how weak our state governments have become compared to their domination at the founding of our country. Where did we go wrong? I believe the first fundamental principle we have allowed to slip is our understanding of history and our founding. Along the way politics, civics, and history have taken a back seat to pragmatism, and a casual undermining of our true history.
We have allowed big government advocates to paint big government as a compassionate institution that is there to help people. We have allowed the constitution and its fundamental principles to be undermined by tortured arguments by Supreme Court justices and power hungry presidents, as they mangled the original intent without a true debate of the ramifications these changes would have for future generations. We have allowed blind emotion to drive decisions that have destroyed millions of American lives with government dependency, and the only result; a few liberals feel good about themselves. We have forgotten how to argue on principle and have accepted short term gratification over standing on principle to achieve more difficult but sounder and moral results.
The Supreme Court has been allowed to become too powerful when the founders intent for the court was simply to determine the constitutionality of laws created by congress. It was never intended to be a body that created laws for the nation. It is an equal branch of government that has been used too often to provide cover for weak kneed politicians that don’t want to do the hard work they are constitutionally required to do. The states have become too complacent to bad federal law and have relegated their responsibility to provide for the states, rendering the Tenth Amendment meaningless.
When coal mine expansion in the state of West Virginia is being held up by a federal bureaucracy that is protecting bugs over jobs, and governors accept this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless. When the federal government believes that a smelt is more important than the farmer in California, and the governor accepts this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless. When our government is passing bills to force our kids to eat certain foods, and the governors accept this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless. When the federal government continues to make decisions affecting state budgets beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and governors accept this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless.
History proves that the Tenth Amendment was critical in the passing of the United States Constitution, and without it the states would have never ratified the document. The arguments for and against ratification were passionate and revolved around a desperate fear that a central government would one day dominate and limit the freedoms that individuals had sacrificed their lives to ensure. Today we have a central government that people fear is stealing their individual liberty and ability to pursue happiness. The Tenth Amendment is not meaningless, it is the pivotal amendment to return the federal government to a limited role and to protect the liberties our founders fought so hard to achieve…
I shudder when I hear governors groveling at the altar of the federal government as Governor Elect Nikki Haley of South Carolina recently did when she asked the president to “allow South Carolina to opt out” of the healthcare bill. This is not constitutional leadership. We need our governors to start studying the history of this nation and start employing the same arguments that were made then, resulting in the Bill of Rights including the Tenth Amendment.
I get perplexed when I read our history and compare the political fights we are having today. It is appalling how weak our state governments have become compared to their domination at the founding of our country. Where did we go wrong? I believe the first fundamental principle we have allowed to slip is our understanding of history and our founding. Along the way politics, civics, and history have taken a back seat to pragmatism, and a casual undermining of our true history.
We have allowed big government advocates to paint big government as a compassionate institution that is there to help people. We have allowed the constitution and its fundamental principles to be undermined by tortured arguments by Supreme Court justices and power hungry presidents, as they mangled the original intent without a true debate of the ramifications these changes would have for future generations. We have allowed blind emotion to drive decisions that have destroyed millions of American lives with government dependency, and the only result; a few liberals feel good about themselves. We have forgotten how to argue on principle and have accepted short term gratification over standing on principle to achieve more difficult but sounder and moral results.
The Supreme Court has been allowed to become too powerful when the founders intent for the court was simply to determine the constitutionality of laws created by congress. It was never intended to be a body that created laws for the nation. It is an equal branch of government that has been used too often to provide cover for weak kneed politicians that don’t want to do the hard work they are constitutionally required to do. The states have become too complacent to bad federal law and have relegated their responsibility to provide for the states, rendering the Tenth Amendment meaningless.
When coal mine expansion in the state of West Virginia is being held up by a federal bureaucracy that is protecting bugs over jobs, and governors accept this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless. When the federal government believes that a smelt is more important than the farmer in California, and the governor accepts this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless. When our government is passing bills to force our kids to eat certain foods, and the governors accept this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless. When the federal government continues to make decisions affecting state budgets beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and governors accept this as normal, the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless.
History proves that the Tenth Amendment was critical in the passing of the United States Constitution, and without it the states would have never ratified the document. The arguments for and against ratification were passionate and revolved around a desperate fear that a central government would one day dominate and limit the freedoms that individuals had sacrificed their lives to ensure. Today we have a central government that people fear is stealing their individual liberty and ability to pursue happiness. The Tenth Amendment is not meaningless, it is the pivotal amendment to return the federal government to a limited role and to protect the liberties our founders fought so hard to achieve…
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The War on Wealth…
The left in this country, including this president have waged a final battle against the creation of wealth in this country. Since our founding, the American spirit has been driven by opportunity to better one’s circumstance through industrious labors. The people that came to this great land were lured by only one thing; opportunity to improve their lives through hard work and limited government intrusion.
The world was a different place before America, and opportunity to create wealth for your own consumption was a “foreign” concept. Most citizens of the day worked to improve the standing of the ruling class. There was little opportunity for individuals to prosper in the pre-America world. The world’s economic output was often incentivized through fear, coercion, and force. Not until the new American Experiment did the world have the chance to see how much more effective economic growth could be when put into the hands of the individual and the rewards of that labor left in the hands that created it.
The creation of wealth in America became the fuel that lifted millions of people around the world out of the most despicable circumstances through the generosity and ability created by individual ingenuity and wealth. When individuals are incentivized through private property and keeping the fruits of labor it is no mystery as to why wealth explodes and raises the circumstances of all within a society. It is simply the harnessing of human nature. Our instinct to provide for ourselves actually fuels our instincts to help our neighbor. The problem we have seen in America is that for too long the wealthy have been fueling compassion, and the recipients have forgotten where this charity comes from.
The tax system has become a mechanism to take one man’s fruits and distribute them to another for no sensible reason. We have seen generations of low income Americans become locked in a system that breeds dependency and steals the incentive to make it on their own. This system has become an industry with the captains of that industry being politicians. These politicians have a self interest in perpetuating poverty and dependency. They fund their “industry” by demonizing the wealth creators, creating envy, punishing wealth, and redistributing the wealth through punitive taxation. This war on wealth has created a class of people that now believe they are entitled to the wealth that is created by these individuals.
We are becoming morally bankrupt as a nation when we believe a person’s success should be a source of scorn and disgust. The question is never “when is enough, enough for the individual wealth creators”. The reality is the more wealth they create the more goes back into society in the form of jobs, investment, and charity. It is not the government’s role in America to decide that question. The government has become over reaching and must be returned to its constitutional role once again. These wealth creators should be celebrated as they were at the founding of this great republic. Without the incentives of individuals to keep the fruits of their labor we harvest less fruit. As the fruit diminishes the dependent class gets restless and demands more from the captains of their industry. The captains demand more from the wealth creators and we find ourselves back in a system where wealth creation is driven by fear, coercion, and force. The engine sputters to a halt and collapses on itself.
We are not far from this point right now. Our tax system must be utilized to provide only the services necessary to conduct a law abiding society. Individuals again must be incentivized through the rewards of their labor. Right now the wealth creators are slowing down their activity because they are being punished and demonized. The wealth creators have not received their rewards through any special circumstance but the industrious spirit they pursue. The envy, jealousy, and demonization of the wealthy is going to destroy the American Spirit. Wealth distribution has already destroyed the people dependent on others. If we don’t stop demonizing wealth we will have nothing to demonize in the very near future…
The world was a different place before America, and opportunity to create wealth for your own consumption was a “foreign” concept. Most citizens of the day worked to improve the standing of the ruling class. There was little opportunity for individuals to prosper in the pre-America world. The world’s economic output was often incentivized through fear, coercion, and force. Not until the new American Experiment did the world have the chance to see how much more effective economic growth could be when put into the hands of the individual and the rewards of that labor left in the hands that created it.
The creation of wealth in America became the fuel that lifted millions of people around the world out of the most despicable circumstances through the generosity and ability created by individual ingenuity and wealth. When individuals are incentivized through private property and keeping the fruits of labor it is no mystery as to why wealth explodes and raises the circumstances of all within a society. It is simply the harnessing of human nature. Our instinct to provide for ourselves actually fuels our instincts to help our neighbor. The problem we have seen in America is that for too long the wealthy have been fueling compassion, and the recipients have forgotten where this charity comes from.
The tax system has become a mechanism to take one man’s fruits and distribute them to another for no sensible reason. We have seen generations of low income Americans become locked in a system that breeds dependency and steals the incentive to make it on their own. This system has become an industry with the captains of that industry being politicians. These politicians have a self interest in perpetuating poverty and dependency. They fund their “industry” by demonizing the wealth creators, creating envy, punishing wealth, and redistributing the wealth through punitive taxation. This war on wealth has created a class of people that now believe they are entitled to the wealth that is created by these individuals.
We are becoming morally bankrupt as a nation when we believe a person’s success should be a source of scorn and disgust. The question is never “when is enough, enough for the individual wealth creators”. The reality is the more wealth they create the more goes back into society in the form of jobs, investment, and charity. It is not the government’s role in America to decide that question. The government has become over reaching and must be returned to its constitutional role once again. These wealth creators should be celebrated as they were at the founding of this great republic. Without the incentives of individuals to keep the fruits of their labor we harvest less fruit. As the fruit diminishes the dependent class gets restless and demands more from the captains of their industry. The captains demand more from the wealth creators and we find ourselves back in a system where wealth creation is driven by fear, coercion, and force. The engine sputters to a halt and collapses on itself.
We are not far from this point right now. Our tax system must be utilized to provide only the services necessary to conduct a law abiding society. Individuals again must be incentivized through the rewards of their labor. Right now the wealth creators are slowing down their activity because they are being punished and demonized. The wealth creators have not received their rewards through any special circumstance but the industrious spirit they pursue. The envy, jealousy, and demonization of the wealthy is going to destroy the American Spirit. Wealth distribution has already destroyed the people dependent on others. If we don’t stop demonizing wealth we will have nothing to demonize in the very near future…
Monday, June 14, 2010
Freedom of the Press VS. Subsidizing Newspapers…
The founders knew the best check on government was the ability of the people and press to speak out against the government and its representatives freely. At the time of our founding, the press (newspapers, pamphlets, letters, etc…) were the only organized vehicles to speak through at the time. Without the “press” of the time, the general public’s ability to get information about issues would have been crippled if not for the traditional means of communications was not protected.
Subsidizing the “business” of the press was not their intention. The only consideration for the founders was protecting liberty by protecting the ability of individuals and organizations like the press to speak out against an oppressive government, and by limiting the power of the government to control the speech against the same government. To suggest that the government should have any role in ensuring a media company’s success in the market place is a total distortion of original intent.
Today, we have the internet, radio, TV, all what the founders would have labeled as the press. Every one of the new medium unknown to the founders at the time, is a support for the original intent which was protecting speech and limiting the power of government. Because the traditional press has squandered their prestige by becoming political arms of party politics is the reason they are failing. They have greater competition, yes, but the real reason for their failure is their drifting from truth and facts to opinion and advocacy. Once you take a side you limit your audience. A very simple concept to understand.
So for the tax payer to subsidize a press that is no longer objective and separate from the government it is supposed to “protect” us from is in absolute contradiction to the original intent of our founders. We don’t need the traditional press, although I believe they still have an opportunity to reform themselves, we have what the founders were trying to truly protect which was the ability to speak out against our government through the expanded mediums we have today. Today’s technology has made speech safer from the perspective of holding government accountable. That is why the argument has shifted to protecting the internet from government control. Because the internet is more like the original press our founders wanted protected. A free interchange of ideas without government influence.
Let the traditional press models fail if they can’t compete, we have an outlet to speak against our government. Once the government is subsidizing the traditional press, we no longer have an independent advocate protecting our liberties. They will become an arm of the government, and that is definitely not what the founders intended when protecting the press in our constitution.
Subsidizing the “business” of the press was not their intention. The only consideration for the founders was protecting liberty by protecting the ability of individuals and organizations like the press to speak out against an oppressive government, and by limiting the power of the government to control the speech against the same government. To suggest that the government should have any role in ensuring a media company’s success in the market place is a total distortion of original intent.
Today, we have the internet, radio, TV, all what the founders would have labeled as the press. Every one of the new medium unknown to the founders at the time, is a support for the original intent which was protecting speech and limiting the power of government. Because the traditional press has squandered their prestige by becoming political arms of party politics is the reason they are failing. They have greater competition, yes, but the real reason for their failure is their drifting from truth and facts to opinion and advocacy. Once you take a side you limit your audience. A very simple concept to understand.
So for the tax payer to subsidize a press that is no longer objective and separate from the government it is supposed to “protect” us from is in absolute contradiction to the original intent of our founders. We don’t need the traditional press, although I believe they still have an opportunity to reform themselves, we have what the founders were trying to truly protect which was the ability to speak out against our government through the expanded mediums we have today. Today’s technology has made speech safer from the perspective of holding government accountable. That is why the argument has shifted to protecting the internet from government control. Because the internet is more like the original press our founders wanted protected. A free interchange of ideas without government influence.
Let the traditional press models fail if they can’t compete, we have an outlet to speak against our government. Once the government is subsidizing the traditional press, we no longer have an independent advocate protecting our liberties. They will become an arm of the government, and that is definitely not what the founders intended when protecting the press in our constitution.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Divided We Fall…
The two parties are at it again. The Republican Governors Association is running an ad against Mayor Hickenlooper, the democratic candidate for governor, trying to link him with the unpopular Bill Ritter, but do we really need this? What is the purpose of the ad? What will be the result of the ad in the end?
The purpose of the ad is simple, to paint candidate Hickenlopper in such a negative light that people will vote against him, therefore helping the republican candidate to win the election. But the democrats are going to respond, most likely creating an ad that will attempt to demonize the republican candidate. And so it will go, on and on, ad after ad, the good people of Colorado will be inundated with negative ad after negative ad, and they will be left to wonder; which candidate is the lesser of two evils.
That is our two party system in a nutshell. Demonize the other party’s candidate to the point that your candidate looks less evil than the other party’s candidate. All in the name of “winning”. I ask; what do we win in the end? No matter which candidate wins in the end, the people in both parties are left with the perceptions from the campaign pounding each has received. So we end up with a dysfunctional ability to govern. Democrats won’t listen or be open to anything a republican winner has to say, and the Republicans will not listen to or be open to anything a democratic winner has to say.
People are so disillusioned with the political process, and yet we are told that negative ads are an effective campaign strategy. These ads may be effective for the party that wins, but not for the people, and the ability to govern. Negative ads are an excuse and an easy way to campaign. The most effective way to win a campaign is to convince people through argument and debate that your positions are right for the direction of the state. Topic by topic, vetted in a forum, not bound by commercial time restraints, but real open and elongated debate. Where people have the opportunity to hear every issue discussed ad-nauseam to the point of conclusion. So why don’t politicians do that?
Simple; the people are not willing to sit and listen to it, and the media does everything in bits and bytes. We the people are partly responsible because we don’t do our homework and are not willing to invest in vetting candidates or protecting our freedom. The media is responsible because they play into the two party horse race, and never give anyone else a chance to be heard. They limit the debate instead of nurturing it.
So how does it change? I don’t know but the first step is for people to do more homework. My campaign is an example. I receive dozens of notes encouraging me and saying they respect and admire what I’m doing. But when it comes down to brass tax, people are not willing to take the effort to support alternative campaigns. We are lazy as an electorate and have been duped into believing what the two parties dish out. There are many alternatives to the two parties but the effort to make the change seems too much for most.
The two parties have been losing members for years and there are more people that find themselves unaffiliated than ever before. That’s a good thing, but leaving the party system is not enough. If you want to end the negative ads that divide us as a people, you need to punish the people that are doing it and support alternatives. Maybe I’m not the right candidate but there will be no change to this divisiveness unless we all get involved to change it...
The purpose of the ad is simple, to paint candidate Hickenlopper in such a negative light that people will vote against him, therefore helping the republican candidate to win the election. But the democrats are going to respond, most likely creating an ad that will attempt to demonize the republican candidate. And so it will go, on and on, ad after ad, the good people of Colorado will be inundated with negative ad after negative ad, and they will be left to wonder; which candidate is the lesser of two evils.
That is our two party system in a nutshell. Demonize the other party’s candidate to the point that your candidate looks less evil than the other party’s candidate. All in the name of “winning”. I ask; what do we win in the end? No matter which candidate wins in the end, the people in both parties are left with the perceptions from the campaign pounding each has received. So we end up with a dysfunctional ability to govern. Democrats won’t listen or be open to anything a republican winner has to say, and the Republicans will not listen to or be open to anything a democratic winner has to say.
People are so disillusioned with the political process, and yet we are told that negative ads are an effective campaign strategy. These ads may be effective for the party that wins, but not for the people, and the ability to govern. Negative ads are an excuse and an easy way to campaign. The most effective way to win a campaign is to convince people through argument and debate that your positions are right for the direction of the state. Topic by topic, vetted in a forum, not bound by commercial time restraints, but real open and elongated debate. Where people have the opportunity to hear every issue discussed ad-nauseam to the point of conclusion. So why don’t politicians do that?
Simple; the people are not willing to sit and listen to it, and the media does everything in bits and bytes. We the people are partly responsible because we don’t do our homework and are not willing to invest in vetting candidates or protecting our freedom. The media is responsible because they play into the two party horse race, and never give anyone else a chance to be heard. They limit the debate instead of nurturing it.
So how does it change? I don’t know but the first step is for people to do more homework. My campaign is an example. I receive dozens of notes encouraging me and saying they respect and admire what I’m doing. But when it comes down to brass tax, people are not willing to take the effort to support alternative campaigns. We are lazy as an electorate and have been duped into believing what the two parties dish out. There are many alternatives to the two parties but the effort to make the change seems too much for most.
The two parties have been losing members for years and there are more people that find themselves unaffiliated than ever before. That’s a good thing, but leaving the party system is not enough. If you want to end the negative ads that divide us as a people, you need to punish the people that are doing it and support alternatives. Maybe I’m not the right candidate but there will be no change to this divisiveness unless we all get involved to change it...
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Jefferson; Thoughts on John and Sam Adams, Hamilton, and why it Matters today…
Thomas Jefferson is considered America’s greatest political Philosopher in the cause of liberty. History scholars, whether they agree with his politics or not, have to agree he was a genius in the discipline of developing government frameworks that protected liberty by harnessing human nature and the propensity of individuals to use government to acquire power. His life was spent studying, defining, determining, and protecting liberty for the America he helped found and loved.
He was a prolific writer and his library contained volumes of books that he read on subjects ranging from farming to the history of the Roman Empire. He used history to support his ideas on liberty, and always argued for limited government based on his knowledge of how government was an avenue to tyranny; always. He also wrote about the other founders and his impression and experience in their joint efforts creating our republic.
On Sam Adams he believed that there was no greater patriot in the cause of freedom and respected Sam Adam’s opinions on many of the difficult issues of the time. Sam Adams was a devout Christian and was driven to freedom mostly due to his belief and defense of religious freedom. Jefferson was very private in his own religion, but respected men like Sam Adams because he knew a free society could only be maintained by a moral society.
On John Adams he respected his ability to argue but knew J Adams had no understanding of human nature and its impact on forming a government. They were often at odds and were seen as rivals but had a mutual respect for the differences of opinion and shared a lifelong relationship that Jefferson treasured and wrote about throughout his life. Their common cause was liberty and forming a “rational republic” form of government.
On Alexander Hamilton he believed and rightfully so, that he would have been content with the British form of government in America, and his true goal of independence was that he should be one of the elite class, not the Englishman sitting thousands of miles away. Hamilton did not believe that government was best ruled by the “common” citizen, and often disagreed with Jefferson on this point. They were rivals in the administration of George Washington, and Jefferson vehemently disagreed with the creation of a central bank not overseen by congress. Jefferson believed Hamilton was content on “force and corruption” in his management of government.
Jefferson never swayed from his belief in self rule and the people’s ability to get most issues right when given the proper information. He knew religion was key for a moral society but a society could not be lead by a religious doctrine. Jefferson knew that a representative republic was the best way to harness tyranny and befriended the leaders that held that belief even though they had limited understanding of the power of human nature. And finally, Jefferson knew that Hamilton was the embodiment of the forces that would need to be harnessed if liberty were to survive. Hamilton’s financial prowess and genius was a skill needed in the first years of the republic due to the accumulated debt of the revolution. But Jefferson often challenged Hamilton’s propensity toward an elite structure of government.
The lessons of Jefferson today are too numerous to state here, but his simple ability to determine the importance of many diverse opinions and skill sets, and direct them for the common good are sorely missing today. Leadership in government is a balance of determining the proper role of government, the emotional nature of the citizens it serves, and never compromising the foundation that makes it all worth the effort; Liberty. We can learn all we need to know about turning our country and its economy around by understanding our history. We can turn our future around by understanding Jefferson and his devotion to liberty…
He was a prolific writer and his library contained volumes of books that he read on subjects ranging from farming to the history of the Roman Empire. He used history to support his ideas on liberty, and always argued for limited government based on his knowledge of how government was an avenue to tyranny; always. He also wrote about the other founders and his impression and experience in their joint efforts creating our republic.
On Sam Adams he believed that there was no greater patriot in the cause of freedom and respected Sam Adam’s opinions on many of the difficult issues of the time. Sam Adams was a devout Christian and was driven to freedom mostly due to his belief and defense of religious freedom. Jefferson was very private in his own religion, but respected men like Sam Adams because he knew a free society could only be maintained by a moral society.
On John Adams he respected his ability to argue but knew J Adams had no understanding of human nature and its impact on forming a government. They were often at odds and were seen as rivals but had a mutual respect for the differences of opinion and shared a lifelong relationship that Jefferson treasured and wrote about throughout his life. Their common cause was liberty and forming a “rational republic” form of government.
On Alexander Hamilton he believed and rightfully so, that he would have been content with the British form of government in America, and his true goal of independence was that he should be one of the elite class, not the Englishman sitting thousands of miles away. Hamilton did not believe that government was best ruled by the “common” citizen, and often disagreed with Jefferson on this point. They were rivals in the administration of George Washington, and Jefferson vehemently disagreed with the creation of a central bank not overseen by congress. Jefferson believed Hamilton was content on “force and corruption” in his management of government.
Jefferson never swayed from his belief in self rule and the people’s ability to get most issues right when given the proper information. He knew religion was key for a moral society but a society could not be lead by a religious doctrine. Jefferson knew that a representative republic was the best way to harness tyranny and befriended the leaders that held that belief even though they had limited understanding of the power of human nature. And finally, Jefferson knew that Hamilton was the embodiment of the forces that would need to be harnessed if liberty were to survive. Hamilton’s financial prowess and genius was a skill needed in the first years of the republic due to the accumulated debt of the revolution. But Jefferson often challenged Hamilton’s propensity toward an elite structure of government.
The lessons of Jefferson today are too numerous to state here, but his simple ability to determine the importance of many diverse opinions and skill sets, and direct them for the common good are sorely missing today. Leadership in government is a balance of determining the proper role of government, the emotional nature of the citizens it serves, and never compromising the foundation that makes it all worth the effort; Liberty. We can learn all we need to know about turning our country and its economy around by understanding our history. We can turn our future around by understanding Jefferson and his devotion to liberty…
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thomas Jefferson; A Simple Man?
I recently finished the book, “The Real Thomas Jefferson” and there were many things about his political philosophy that were, and remain critical to our success today, but one thing stood out as I look at the world today; simplicity. Even though he was a trained and skilled lawyer, he believed in simple language when it came to legislation. He spent time “de-lawyering” many laws in Virginia and was extremely suspicious of complex schemes in the Federal Government.
As I look at my candidacy for Governor, I often wonder why we have so many things in government that are complex? For example; why can’t the education formula for Colorado simply tie one amount to a student, whatever that is, and we can argue the amount, say $10,000 for each student (K-12) goes to whatever school they choose. Why doesn’t that work?
I have been to Government conferences in my private sector work and have attended classes designed to help people understand the complexity of government contracting, whether buying computers, aircraft, or pencils, the process is overwhelming and often teams of people are needed to sort it out. Why?
It comes down to two things when I sift through the complexity; trust, and trust. Contracting with the government is so complex because the people managing the contracts are not trusted to apply fairness in the process whether it is creating specs or awarding bids. And politicians want their friends to get the contracts and have in the past “rigged” the process, and so in order to guard against insider awards, a complex maze of regulations was created. And then there are the targeted, set aside contracts for specific groups of people that throw in even more complex specifications. In all this complexity the components most important in a contract for product or services gets lost; quality and price.
No one trusts the government anymore and there is example after example of fraud, abuse, and incompetence, but we only hear about the evils of business and the private sector. The private sector abuses are punished by market forces that can run private companies out of business. Government abuses seem to be tolerated, ignored, and often rewarded with more work or funding. But the reality is that the more complex anything is, the more opportunity for abuse. When we simplify, and people can understand why something is done a certain way, they are more likely to support an initiative.
Thomas Jefferson was in no way a simple man, but he understood that simple was better when you were dealing with government policy and building trust with the American people. Wanting things to be simple doesn’t make you a simple man; it makes you a genius. Just read about the life of Thomas Jefferson and I think you will agree…
As I look at my candidacy for Governor, I often wonder why we have so many things in government that are complex? For example; why can’t the education formula for Colorado simply tie one amount to a student, whatever that is, and we can argue the amount, say $10,000 for each student (K-12) goes to whatever school they choose. Why doesn’t that work?
I have been to Government conferences in my private sector work and have attended classes designed to help people understand the complexity of government contracting, whether buying computers, aircraft, or pencils, the process is overwhelming and often teams of people are needed to sort it out. Why?
It comes down to two things when I sift through the complexity; trust, and trust. Contracting with the government is so complex because the people managing the contracts are not trusted to apply fairness in the process whether it is creating specs or awarding bids. And politicians want their friends to get the contracts and have in the past “rigged” the process, and so in order to guard against insider awards, a complex maze of regulations was created. And then there are the targeted, set aside contracts for specific groups of people that throw in even more complex specifications. In all this complexity the components most important in a contract for product or services gets lost; quality and price.
No one trusts the government anymore and there is example after example of fraud, abuse, and incompetence, but we only hear about the evils of business and the private sector. The private sector abuses are punished by market forces that can run private companies out of business. Government abuses seem to be tolerated, ignored, and often rewarded with more work or funding. But the reality is that the more complex anything is, the more opportunity for abuse. When we simplify, and people can understand why something is done a certain way, they are more likely to support an initiative.
Thomas Jefferson was in no way a simple man, but he understood that simple was better when you were dealing with government policy and building trust with the American people. Wanting things to be simple doesn’t make you a simple man; it makes you a genius. Just read about the life of Thomas Jefferson and I think you will agree…
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Jefferson, the Fed, and the Tenth Amendment…
In one of the many arguments Thomas Jefferson had with Alexander Hamilton in the first administration of the newly found republic, under President George Washington, Jefferson used these words to describe why Hamilton’s plan for a federal bank under private management was a bad and unconstitutional idea:
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground”: that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.”…
Jefferson went on to argue: “The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated…” “If such latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or another.” Simply stated; Ignore the enumerated powers and there are no enumerated powers, the sky is the limit to expanded federal government.
This is the foundation of the “implied powers” argument used throughout history to ignore the true intent of the constitution.
How prophetic Jefferson was, and how we see over the years the federal government’s quest for power has given us a government that Hamilton always wanted, a government of an elite class of men with the power over the common man. My words, not his; his sentiment, not mine.
Jefferson fought desperately to stop what today is the Federal Reserve System. If Jefferson were alive today he would want to end the fed. Giving up the federal treasury to be run by “independent and private” interests in his eyes was a recipe for disaster. And the disaster is now upon us.
Jefferson accused Hamilton of “excluding popular understanding and inquiry.” He argued the system of banking and credit devised by Hamilton was so confusing no man including the “president or congress should be able to understand it, or control it.” Which he believed gave Hamilton a scheme to enrich himself and his cohorts within the system Hamilton devised.
These arguments between the two founders were the foundation of a two party system. Not the one we have today but it put people in two “camps”; federalists and republicans with a small r. The Republican Party of yesterday is in modern times what became the Democratic Party. The federalists were the big central government supporters that had the rich, wealthy, and British sympathizers behind it.
How times change but one thing remains true; the principles of our constitution are the key to our recovery and a prosperous future. If we listen and learn about our history and great men like Thomas Jefferson we can consider the paths ahead by the great understanding that he had of government.
He loved the constitution and it was he and Madison that promised the Bill of Rights to encourage the states to ratify our Constitution. It is time to revisit our constitution and our Tenth Amendment in particular. That is, if we want a prosperous future and one that restrains the federal government from intruding on out state and individual rights.
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground”: that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.”…
Jefferson went on to argue: “The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated…” “If such latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or another.” Simply stated; Ignore the enumerated powers and there are no enumerated powers, the sky is the limit to expanded federal government.
This is the foundation of the “implied powers” argument used throughout history to ignore the true intent of the constitution.
How prophetic Jefferson was, and how we see over the years the federal government’s quest for power has given us a government that Hamilton always wanted, a government of an elite class of men with the power over the common man. My words, not his; his sentiment, not mine.
Jefferson fought desperately to stop what today is the Federal Reserve System. If Jefferson were alive today he would want to end the fed. Giving up the federal treasury to be run by “independent and private” interests in his eyes was a recipe for disaster. And the disaster is now upon us.
Jefferson accused Hamilton of “excluding popular understanding and inquiry.” He argued the system of banking and credit devised by Hamilton was so confusing no man including the “president or congress should be able to understand it, or control it.” Which he believed gave Hamilton a scheme to enrich himself and his cohorts within the system Hamilton devised.
These arguments between the two founders were the foundation of a two party system. Not the one we have today but it put people in two “camps”; federalists and republicans with a small r. The Republican Party of yesterday is in modern times what became the Democratic Party. The federalists were the big central government supporters that had the rich, wealthy, and British sympathizers behind it.
How times change but one thing remains true; the principles of our constitution are the key to our recovery and a prosperous future. If we listen and learn about our history and great men like Thomas Jefferson we can consider the paths ahead by the great understanding that he had of government.
He loved the constitution and it was he and Madison that promised the Bill of Rights to encourage the states to ratify our Constitution. It is time to revisit our constitution and our Tenth Amendment in particular. That is, if we want a prosperous future and one that restrains the federal government from intruding on out state and individual rights.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Change the Constitution?
I often hear from people that say the constitution is old and needs a revamp. The argument goes something like this “how can a document written so long ago be relevant today? So much has changed.”
I can understand how people can argue that things have changed since the time of our founding, but it tells me that they have not read the constitution or any history surrounding its creation. I encourage all to read the document and especially those that believe it should be changed. The dirty little secret is it can be changed but the process is deliberately difficult to insure changes are not made on emotion and are vetted, debated, and voted on by the legislatures in every state to insure agreement on the proposed changes.
The fact is that human nature doesn’t change. Human beings have common emotions and in critical moments have a propensity toward mob rule, violence, and tyranny. This historical and indisputable fact is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It is designed to limit, when respected and adhered to, the infringement of government on the individual’s rights and to protect against the propensity of government to dominate and control others. Just look around the United States today and you will find circumstances that support the fact that humans are emotional, violent, and use government to infringe on other people’s rights. The healthcare bill is a perfect example.
The other fundamental principle the founders understood and acknowledged was there is a God. They based many of the founding principles on the premise that certain rights are God given therefore can never be given or more importantly taken away by man. Think hard about this principle even if you are not religious. This is not about religion it is about a power greater than man. That principle is the foundation that keeps those determined to rule your life in check.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many other dictators knew that targeting and killing the men of God had to happen in order to control people. If there was a power greater than them it would undermine their ability to rule. Without a belief in God, who makes the “rules” of a government? What man do you trust to protect your God given right to life?
Based on these fundamental principles the founders documented the greatest government framework the world had ever and has ever seen to date. And I as well as many others believe will never be trumped because these principles do not change.
Our constitution protects our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and these are the principles outlined in our constitution so I ask; what should we change?
• Should we as individuals give up our rights to a government authority?
• Should we give up the right to private property and have a government authority divide up the land?
• Should we only assemble together when the government gives us approval?
• Should government determine the God we worship?
What should we change? Many that want this change are willing to give up their rights for the common “good”. But the constitution protects the people from the “good” of government. It limits the “good” they are allowed to do because government has a track record of tyranny, inefficiency, violence, and misery.
The individual right of Americans to pursue happiness under our constitution has been responsible for the happiness of millions around the world that have not been as fortunate as us. Free markets and free people have created the wealth that has fed nations and lifted millions out of poverty. Government can’t do that. Read your history.
Before you suggest changing the constitution, first you must learn and understand its purpose. Then if you still feel it needs changing, start a movement to make the change. Be careful what you ask for…
I can understand how people can argue that things have changed since the time of our founding, but it tells me that they have not read the constitution or any history surrounding its creation. I encourage all to read the document and especially those that believe it should be changed. The dirty little secret is it can be changed but the process is deliberately difficult to insure changes are not made on emotion and are vetted, debated, and voted on by the legislatures in every state to insure agreement on the proposed changes.
The fact is that human nature doesn’t change. Human beings have common emotions and in critical moments have a propensity toward mob rule, violence, and tyranny. This historical and indisputable fact is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It is designed to limit, when respected and adhered to, the infringement of government on the individual’s rights and to protect against the propensity of government to dominate and control others. Just look around the United States today and you will find circumstances that support the fact that humans are emotional, violent, and use government to infringe on other people’s rights. The healthcare bill is a perfect example.
The other fundamental principle the founders understood and acknowledged was there is a God. They based many of the founding principles on the premise that certain rights are God given therefore can never be given or more importantly taken away by man. Think hard about this principle even if you are not religious. This is not about religion it is about a power greater than man. That principle is the foundation that keeps those determined to rule your life in check.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many other dictators knew that targeting and killing the men of God had to happen in order to control people. If there was a power greater than them it would undermine their ability to rule. Without a belief in God, who makes the “rules” of a government? What man do you trust to protect your God given right to life?
Based on these fundamental principles the founders documented the greatest government framework the world had ever and has ever seen to date. And I as well as many others believe will never be trumped because these principles do not change.
Our constitution protects our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and these are the principles outlined in our constitution so I ask; what should we change?
• Should we as individuals give up our rights to a government authority?
• Should we give up the right to private property and have a government authority divide up the land?
• Should we only assemble together when the government gives us approval?
• Should government determine the God we worship?
What should we change? Many that want this change are willing to give up their rights for the common “good”. But the constitution protects the people from the “good” of government. It limits the “good” they are allowed to do because government has a track record of tyranny, inefficiency, violence, and misery.
The individual right of Americans to pursue happiness under our constitution has been responsible for the happiness of millions around the world that have not been as fortunate as us. Free markets and free people have created the wealth that has fed nations and lifted millions out of poverty. Government can’t do that. Read your history.
Before you suggest changing the constitution, first you must learn and understand its purpose. Then if you still feel it needs changing, start a movement to make the change. Be careful what you ask for…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
