Honoring the Fallen

Putting flowers on the graves of fallen soldiers seems insignificant. What I can do to guard the gift of freedom that cost these heroes their lives?

The Russian Andrei Sakharov gave me a clue when he said:

"I've always thought that the most powerful weapon in the world was the bomb, and that's why I gave it to my people; but I've come to the conclusion that the most powerful weapon in the world is not the bomb but the truth."

 The greatest danger to freedom is a well-crafted lie. Our only weapon – the truth.

Sometimes the battle is obvious. This politician says one thing. That politician says the opposite. The future of our country is at stake. Can we find the facts? Will we try?

At other times, the conflict seems minor.

• Do I ignore certain facts in order to protect my treasured beliefs?
• Do I make a whole-hearted search for the truth?
• Do I stand for the truth even if it costs me a friendship or hurts my business?
• Am I completely honest with other people?
• Am I completely honest with myself?

No matter how trivial the situation, compromise is not an option. If we compromise, we lose our grip on that ultimate weapon, the truth.

I may never pick up a gun to defend my country; but this Memorial Day I publicly commit myself to living for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

A Musician's Take on Gun Control

“Let me write the songs of a nation and I care not who writes its laws.” ~ Andrew Fletcher

In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, we ask why there is such an increase in random violence. Many call for stricter gun control laws. But are we just treating the symptom?

Why is there such violence? Pick up a teen’s iPod. Play his video games. Go to the movies.

We claim that posting the Ten Commandments in the public school would be religious coercion. And violence in the media has no effect?

If we pass a new gun control law and ignore the greater problem, we are either fools or hypocrites. Take your pick.

Romney’s Wrong! Partly…

Photo: Creative Commons/Gage Skidmore

Do the 47% who pay no federal income taxes believe they are victims? Do they believe the government is responsible for taking care of them, giving them health care and food and housing? No. At least, not all of them. I know this because I was one of them in 2010. The Making Work Pay Tax Credit wiped out all my income tax liability that year. Other years I paid a very small amount in income taxes, but I never felt like a victim.

Romney’s comment wasn’t smart. But let’s not overlook the truth in it. When the government takes responsibility for feeding and housing the poor, those poor people lose some of their political freedom.

Picture a father entering the voting booth, knowing that he needs food stamps to provide for his children. What if he fears his family will be on the street without welfare? What about the grandma who needs Medicare to pay for the surgery that will keep her alive?

Are these people free to vote their conscience on social issues and foreign policy? Are they free to vote for the politician with the best plan for our country as a whole? Or do they feel obligated to vote for the politician who promises to maintain the program on which they depend?

I am not arguing against all welfare programs. I do urge caution. Every time the government steps in to take care of one more thing, we lose some freedom. Our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to win freedom for us. Are we just as dedicated to preserving it?

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Wrong question!

Republicans like to ask this question. I’d like to tell them, “It doesn’t matter.” Are we really so selfish that we’ll vote for a president based on how our individual lives are going? If I’m unemployed, will I vote against President Obama because he hasn’t fixed my life?

The real question should be, “Is our country better off than it was 4 years ago?” With our national debt topping $16 trillion, I believe the answer is no.

I hope you have noticed by now that I am an equal-opportunity criticizer. I disagree with some of President George W. Bush’s policies. The debt increased $4.9 trillion during his 8 years in office.

The debt has increased $5.3 trillion during President Obama’s 4 years in office. Whose fault is this? Is the debt still driven by Bush’s policies? What effect have Obama’s policies had?

Those are questions we must answer. It takes research to find the truth. Are we patriotic enough to hunt for answers? Will we face the truth when we find it? Stay tuned as I pursue this truth quest.

$                    $                    $

My facts about the debt are from a chart at "The Exploding National Debt: Who's Responsible?"

Paul Ryan may not have lied, but did he deliberately mislead?

Paul Ryan did not technically lie about GM's SUV factory in Janesville. The statements he made were factually accurate. But there’s a difference between correct facts and true honesty. Paul Ryan’s speech seemed awfully misleading.

That disappointed me. I had respected him. Would he really twist the truth? I needed to figure that out. I read the details about the GM plant.  I read the entire speech that candidate Obama gave at Janesville in 2008.

Did Obama promise to keep the plant open? Didn’t he realize it would be closed before he took office? Did Paul Ryan take one sentence out of context to make a sleazy point?

Obama did not promise to keep the plant open. After honoring the plant’s nearly century-long history, he admitted it shut down temporarily during the Depression. He acknowledged how many times they changed what they manufactured to meet changing demand.

He described how Manitowoc, WI, lost a factory but gained two green energy companies that cut their unemployment in half.  He complimented the GM workers on how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles they were producing. Then came the all-important comments to which Paul Ryan referred.

And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President. 

My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. We’ll also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology and help workers learn the skills they need for these jobs.

Candidate Obama implied that with the government’s help, they could transform the plant into a factory that produced something more energy efficient than SUVs. He did not specifically promise this. He did not break his promise. But the people of Janesville were rightly disappointed when the factory stood empty for Obama’s full first term as president. And Paul Ryan was not being dishonest when he mentioned their disappointment in his speech.

Capitalism operates on humanity’s selfish tendency. Do you agree?

Yes! Does it surprise you that someone as conservative as I would go along with a statement that seems so socialist? Well, I’d like to add my own question to the mix:

“Is mankind perfectible?”

We claim that we have separation of church and state in America, but there is no way to separate fully our religious beliefs from our politics. The Bible says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (See Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV.) I look at my own heart and find this is true.

Take chocolate for example. We have a candy dish in our house. When Mom fills it with chocolate, I help myself freely. Those Hersey chocolates with toffee bits are the best!

I have another chocolate stash. It’s my personal supply. When it disappears, I must spend my hard-earned money to replenish it, or I must go without. And life without chocolate is not a pretty picture.

Yes, I’m selfish. I consume less when I pay for something myself. I work harder when I know I can use the money for that thing I want. A bigger bag of chocolate?

Socialism’s motto sounds great. “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” But does it work?

I am capable of great unselfishness within my family circle. I’ll give freely to my close friends. Will I work 16-hour days to give more money to the government and hope that our elected officials use it wisely to help the poor? No.

Maybe I’m skeptical because of scandals like the GSA conference in Las Vegas. Maybe I doubt because I know my personal selfishness which I fight each day. But I’m thankful that our founding fathers left us with a system that uses selfishness to motivate us toward hard work, and our hard work benefits all of society.

“I know my rights, I know the law, and what I say I saw, I saw!”

I may not be a movie buff, but even I know that this line comes from the Shirley Temple movie The Little Princess.

This 1939 quote applies to most Americans today. We know our rights. We know the first amendment, and we argue about what can be included in free speech. People join the NRA to defend their right to own guns. Characters on television continually seek refuge in their fifth-amendment rights.

But do we know the tenth amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who cares? I do. If my state treads on my freedom, I can move to a different state. Consider the Great Migration (1910-1970), the mass movement of African Americans north. They knew how to escape Jim Crow laws.

Even now, we can choose to live in a state where it’s easy to run a home business or where there are fewer restrictions on home schooling. If I want to drink large sodas, I’ll stay out of New York City.

But if the federal government enacts oppressive regulations, where can I go to escape? Does the Constitution give Congress power to regulate health insurance, or was this a power reserved to the states?

I promised not to post again until I had read the entire Constitution. I kept my promise. I only found three places in the Constitution that might give Congress power to regulate health insurance. They are as follows:

1. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8.3)
2. The General Welfare Clause (Article I, Section 8.1)
3. The taxing power (Article I, Section 8.1 and Amendment XVI)

If you found another relevant clause, please comment.

Made in China – So What?

I’m taking a short break from discussing health care to address Olympic uniforms. My main thought is “Big deal!” In 1776, Adam Smith explained:

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy… If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

 If China can make clothing cheaper than we can, we’re fools to make it ourselves. We should make the things we can make most efficiently and trade with China for our shirts and shoes.

There are legitimate things to debate concerning international trade. Why is it cheaper to make clothes in China? Do we have too many business regulations in the U.S.A.? Are our corporate taxes too high? Are the Chinese workers underpaid? If so, would we help the Chinese people by refusing to do business with their country, or do we help them more by providing jobs that are better than what they would get otherwise? Do American workers receive enough in unemployment/welfare that they are unwilling to take low-paying jobs like manufacturing clothes?

If news shows want to cover Olympic uniforms, I wish they would deal with these questions. Continually running video clips about burning the uniforms is not news. It’s emotional hype, and I’ve had enough of it.

Whose Job Is It?

Ever get frustrated with your friends who gripe about constitutionality when the health care system is a mess? It’s almost like people standing around, watching a house burn and arguing about who should get the hose.

But in this case, it does matter who does it. Our founding fathers divided the power between the federal and state governments to safeguard our freedom. Putting all the power in the hands of a few is very dangerous.

How do we know whose job it is to address health care? The answers are all found in a ten-page document – our Constitution. Have you read it lately?

I read Article I last night. I was pleasantly surprised that it is much easier to understand than modern legalese. I promise I won’t post here again until I finish reading the Constitution. Will you take the challenge, too?

Five Questions about the Affordable Care Act

“Give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry exclaimed. We all know this line, but can we quote anything else he said? He opened that famous speech with other wise words. After complementing the patriotism of the gentlemen who had just spoken, he said:

I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve…[In] proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth…

 I have good friends on both sides of the health care debate. Like Patrick Henry, I hope I do not sound disrespectful when I speak. We need the truth. Let us have free debate.

My five most important questions about the Affordable Care Act are as follows:

1. Who should address the health care problem, the federal government or the states?
2. Can we afford the ACA?
3. Will the ACA work?
4. Will the ACA impair our freedom?
5. Are there feasible alternatives to the ACA?

I plan to address these questions in a series of posts. I hope I do not antagonize my friends. I want free discussion. As Patrick Henry said, “Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country…” Please join me in this search for truth.

Ferrari Giveaway! See Details Below.

I’ve found a guaranteed way to get music students to continue lessons throughout high school. Give Ferraris for graduation presents. Can I afford it? Hm…maybe I’ll stall a little. This promise only applies to future high school students. If you’re graduating this year, tough luck.

I’ll have four years to save money before starting my giveaway. My income will be great because I’ll have so many students. I’ll have a balanced budget. I’ll have no debt. My financial statistics will be incredible. As long as you don’t look at my future promises.

Stupid plan? I agree. But why do we fall for it when politicians propose similar things?

When accessing the financial well being of our state and nation, let’s remember to ask all the questions.

• Are we bringing in as much money as we’re paying out?
• Is our debt sustainable?
• Have we made promises we cannot keep?

Political promises include social security, Medicare, retirement for government employees, health care, and many other things. What have politicians not promised? Do we trust them?

If we cannot keep our promises, we need to change direction immediately. The promise may be wonderful. I know my students would love a Ferrari, but they shouldn’t get their hopes up as I attend graduation parties this spring. Want a Matchbox car?

These dead shall not have died in vain.

The dilemma of every Memorial Day: Can I post a unique, thoughtful Facebook status to honor those who died for my freedom? Words cannot describe the ultimate sacrifice. The only words that come to mind are those of President Lincoln at Gettysburg.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

How can I be dedicated to their unfinished work? I’ll let Benjamin Franklin answer that: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

What are my priorities in this election season? Will I vote for the person who promises me security, who promises a chicken in every pot? Gifts are never free. Someone pays the price. If the government promises me one thing, I will pay for it in a different way. Or my neighbor will pay.

Freedom isn’t free. Someone paid the ultimate price for me. Will I, like Esau, sell my birthright for bread and pottage?

I'm Puzzled.

President Obama visited Master Lock Company in Milwaukee, WI, on Wednesday to promote his jobs plan, which includes tax breaks for companies that bring jobs back from overseas. In his speech, the President mentioned Diamond Precision, which plans to add jobs in Milwaukee, and Collaborative Consulting, which wants to open a call center near Wausau.

Why does this puzzle me? These companies benefited from Governor Scott Walker’s pro-business tax incentives. See Walker’s announcement about Diamond Precision and the WEDC announcement about Collaborative Consulting, Inc.

If the President favors a federal tax incentive for job creation, why have Democrats opposed Walker’s tax reforms? What is the difference between the plans?

The only significant difference I can find is that President Obama plans to fund his tax breaks by closing tax loopholes on corporations that outsource jobs. Should Walker have done the same thing? Can Wisconsin penalize companies for outsourcing jobs to other states? Are there specific loopholes Gov. Walker should have closed?

At the end of his speech, Obama listed three values that have made America great: hard work, fair play and shared responsibility. So let’s play fair. If Walker’s tax incentives enabled Diamond Precision and Collaborative Consulting to create jobs in Wisconsin, maybe we should give him credit.

Profit or No Profit?

Did you know that you sometimes pay taxes on profit that isn’t profit at all? The government might be taxing you on inflation.

Pretend I’m saving for a new violin. Yes, this entire post will be a “pretend” because I bought a violin a year ago, and I love it.

What if I find an instrument I like for $8,000? I only have $3,000 saved. I buy gold with my $3,000 and keep saving. Or rather trying to save. You know how it goes. Emergencies keep coming up, and I just can’t squirrel away any more money.

Finally, I check the value of my original investment and see it has doubled. Now my gold is worth $6,000. I’m excited until I find out that the price of the violin has also doubled. It costs $16,000.

I’m no closer to my goal. And when I sell my gold, I have to pay capital gains taxes on its “increased” value. If the capital gains tax rate is 15%, I’ll be sending $450 to the government.

Alan Blinder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, admitted that up until 1980 most capital gains taxes were paid on increased prices due to inflation and not on true increase in value. See "Capital Gains Taxes" by Stephen Moore.

The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation makes a similar point. The table at the top of page eleven shows how much investors would pay in capital gains taxes due to inflation if they bought stock in certain years and sold it in 1994.

When the price of everything goes up, it isn’t profit. It’s inflation. Don’t tax it.

Capital Gains Taxes – Part 2

I will now prove how good I am at debate. I am so good that I can argue both sides of an issue. I will proceed to argue against my last post.

It is sometimes true that capital gains taxes are double taxation. Corporations pay high taxes on their profits. This negatively affects the price of their stock. The little bit that the stock increases in value is taxed again if the investor sells it and reports capital gain.

But not all capital gains are from stocks. If someone invests in gold and sells it at a profit, it’s pure profit. No corporate taxes have been paid.

Or is it pure profit? There is that awful word inflation, but I’ll leave that for my next post.

Capital Gains Taxes

Is the capital gains tax rate too low? Not if you look at the whole picture. Pretend you risk your money by investing in a new company. With your money, the business manages to make $100 profit (after expenses, employee's wages, etc.).

"Yay!" you think. You didn't lose your investment. You made money instead. But you forgot one important thing – the corporate tax rate. That business has to pay approximately 40% of its earnings in taxes (state and federal) before it can give any money to you.

So this new business that you supported sends $40 to the government. “Oh, well,” you think, “I still get $60.” Not quite. Once the company sends the $60 to you, you have to pay taxes on it again. Granted it’s only 15% since it’s capital gains. But 15% of your $60 is still $9.

You send the $9 to the government. You figure it’s a rough deal, but at least you got to keep $51 of the $100 that the business made with your money. But then your neighbor complains that you didn’t pay enough taxes – he has to pay 35% income tax.

Ugh! Forty-nine percent of your profit went to the government, and someone is complaining. Well, that’s his problem. You have a different problem. You’re staring at that $51 in your hand and wondering if it’s worth investing it again. Investments are a little risky. Maybe you should hide it under your mattress.

Socialism and Solidarity

The Democratic Socialists of America state, “Our vision of socialism is a profoundly democratic one, rooted in the belief that individuals can only reach their full potential in a society that embodies the values of liberty, equality, and solidarity. Only through creating material and cultural bonds of solidarity across racial, gender, age, national, and class lines can true equality of opportunity be achieved.” See Section 1 of “Where We Stand.”

Superficially, this vision appears beautiful. I realized, though, that I did not know the definition of solidarity. It sounds good. It is a popular word. It must be right. But what does it mean?

According to Dictionary.com, solidarity is union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests. It is a community of responsibilities, interests, feelings and/or purposes

Is it possible to have perfect solidarity without a shared religion? My sense of responsibility comes from my faith in God. My interests, feelings and purpose in life are inextricably entwined with my religion.

How much unity of belief is necessary to make socialism work? Can we find that kind of unity in a pluralist society?

Jim Crow and Political Debate

On Sunday, the Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused Republicans of wanting “to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws” by instituting photo ID laws for voting. She later admitted that she should not have used the Jim Crow analogy, but she persisted in her claim that Republicans want to disenfranchise minorities.

Why does this bother me? Because I am a Republican, and I am not a racist. I want minorities to feel comfortable in our party. I want them to know that we also stand for civil rights. The Republican Party has a rich history of fighting for civil rights.

In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school segregation is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education). On September 2, 1957, Governor Orval Faubus (D) deployed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black students from attending Central High School. President Eisenhower (R) sent the 101st Airborne to protect the African-American students.

Eisenhower’s Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Senator Strom Thurmond (D) filibustered it, setting the record for the longest speech by a single congressman (24 hours and 18 minutes). The Southern Democrats insisted on compromises that left the act practically powerless. See "Herbert Brownell, GOP civil rights hero".

Wasserman Schultz said, “Photo I.D. laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax.” Does she remember what ended the poll taxes? The 24th Amendment, voted for by 91% of Congressional Republicans and only 71% of Democrats ("Black Voting Rights").

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 needed the help of Republicans. The Democrats had a large majority in Congress, but only 198 of the 315 Democrats supported the bill. President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) needed 269 votes to pass it. He worked with Republicans to get the act through Congress.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 used the original wording of Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act. Eighteen Senators voted against the Voting Rights Act. Seventeen were Democrats ("Black Voting Rights").

I don’t want to get into a fight about which party did more for civil rights. But I also don’t want people to assume I don’t care about the poor, oppressed and minorities because I vote Republican.

Republicans care. They just don’t talk about it enough. How many people know of President George W. Bush’s work to treat and prevent AIDS in Africa? To fight malaria in Africa? To help underdeveloped African countries? He carefully structured his programs to provide accountability and incentives for real improvement ("Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa").

Concerning No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Bush said, ‘These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America.” Bush wanted to help minority students through accountability and local control.

Many say Bush failed. Thomas Sowell, an African-American author and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, disagrees. He pointed out that less than five years after NCLB, young black students had significantly narrowed the gap between themselves and white students. Older minority students did not improve, which affected the overall statistics ("Does the No Child Left Behind Act help black students?")

We could debate Bush’s education policy. We should debate it. Let’s quit accusing each other of not caring about minorities. We all care. We just disagree on methods. I’m looking forward to a healthy discussion about policy and methods in this coming election year. But, please, no name-calling.

Experience

“Is this a good violin?” a parent asked me.

Gulp. How am I supposed to know?

Granted, I am a violin teacher. I have a degree in music. I graduated summa cum laude. That means I play well. I can analyze harmonies. I can discuss the artistic culture of the late 1800s. But college taught me nothing about the quality of student-level violins.

I have learned much since that first frightening experience. I have learned it in the trenches where most learning happens. But the experience makes me think twice about other people’s lists of impressive credentials.

Assistant Attorney General Kloppenburg graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin Law School (1988). She has argued cases in circuit courts, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

But what have these cases been about? According to Media Trackers, “since 1990 she has only argued seven criminal cases before higher courts.” Media Trackers reviewed the cases Kloppenburg has argued before these courts. The website found that over 75% of the cases involved the DNR or environmental issues.

More importantly, Kloppenburg has never been a judge. Judges must be impartial. Do we have evidence she can do this?

Impartiality is very difficult. I struggle with it. I am sure you can decipher my political leanings from my first two posts on this blog.

When electing someone to a ten-year term on our state’s highest court, I would be much more comfortable with a candidate who has judicial experience and a written record that can be examined.

Prosser Equals Walker, or Does He?

I have an identical twin. She and I are a lot alike. But sometimes we are opposites. I would not want anyone to say, “Jennifer equals Terry.” Why do we do this to politicians?

Many of Justice Prosser’s views are similar to Governor Walker’s. Prosser served as a Republican in the state legislature for eighteen years. If he had to make policy, he might still vote with the Republicans much of the time. But all of the time?

In an interview with The Associated Press, Prosser responded to a question about the budget repair bill. He said, "I don't necessarily agree with the bill. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't mean anything. My personal opinion doesn't mean anything at all." (See "Prosser Questions Budget Repair.")

Judges do not make policy. They are responsible for impartially applying the law to individual situations.

Has Prosser done this? People cite cases in which they do not like the conclusions Prosser reached. But like is not the question. He might not have liked his own decisions.

Showing partiality to the poor is just as wrong as showing partiality to the rich. Judges must be impartial. Did Prosser succeed in this? Did he properly interpret and apply the law?

Those who claim that Prosser equals Walker are responsible for providing evidence. If you believe Prosser misinterpreted the law, you are welcome to comment on this post and give me specific examples. Please be polite. The purpose of this blog is to promote rational discussion, not inflammatory political rhetoric.