About Me

Name: Randy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Radio Interview on the Jordan Sekulow Show - Doc Film "I Want Your Money"

I was on the Jordan Sekulow Show on June 15th talking about writing the film I Want Your Money, which was just released on DVD last month. My approximately 10 minute interview picks up after a few minutes of introductory remarks by Jordan.  

You can listen to the show here:


Here's the film's trailer:  


DVD and Blu-Ray Available in February


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

History is Pawlenty's Guide to Economic Recovery: Let's Get This Country Moving Again

John Kennedy’s campaign theme in 1960 was, “Let’s get this country moving again.” Twenty years later Ronald Reagan said in his First Inaugural Address, “It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden.” Both of these leaders believed that the American people and their ingenuity, and not the federal government, offered the best and only real means to put get this country back on track economically and with significant job creation.  Republican Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty recently tapped into this pro-growth vein, stating, “The President is satisfied with a second-rate American economy. Produced by his third-rate policies. I’m not.” Pawlenty’s plan would likely get the approving nod of Kennedy and Reagan.

John Kennedy, at the beginning of the 1960’s, recognized that America was losing its competitive advantage in the global marketplace due to overly high taxes and regulation, stemming from the days of World War II and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Top marginal rates were over 90%, and this was stifling businesses’ ability to grow, invest, and create jobs. In terms of creating jobs, the New Deal was a failure: in 1939, just prior to the outbreak of World War II, unemployment in the United States still stood at 15% after six years of New Deal programs. Further, all the new spending of that Era doubled the National Debt. Kennedy, though a Democrat, believed that rather than increasing federal spending to try to spur growth, the growth must come from the private sector. His plan called for “an across the board cut on both corporate and personal income taxes…The billions of dollars placed in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and long term benefits to our economy. Every dollar that is released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job or salary and these new jobs and new salaries will create other jobs and other salaries.”

Kennedy’s plan was to grow the pie and create jobs, and thereby increase revenues to the federal government. He said, “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe — and I believe this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”

History proved Kennedy’s premise to be true. By just reducing the top marginal income tax rate from 90% to 70% and reducing the lower tax brackets as well, revenues went up by an inflation adjusted average of 8.6% a year for the next four years following the Kennedy tax cuts, compared to 2.1% in the previous four. The economy boomed, experiencing over 5% GDP growth per year, unemployment fell to 3.9%, and the federal government experienced a budget surplus by the end of the decade. (See The Return to Prosperity by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore.)

Ronald Reagan pointed to and followed Kennedy’s example when it came time to get the economy moving again in the early 1980s. The nation was experiencing stagflation: stagnant economic growth and double-digit inflation. Unemployment reached 10% and interest rates stood at twice that. Reagan implemented across the board tax cuts, eventually getting the top personal income tax rate down from 70% to 28%. America’s economic pie grew an entire third larger (averaging around 5% GDP growth per year in the first 4 years following the cuts) resulting in revenues to the federal treasury doubling from a half a trillion to a trillion dollars. The unemployment rate fell in half to just under 5%, and the economy experienced, with the exception of two minor recessions, in the early ‘90s and 2000s, 25 years of strong, positive growth, including budget surpluses during the later half of the 1990s. (See “The Real Reagan Economic Record”, Peter Sperry, the Heritage Foundation)

President Obama draws a different lesson from history. In his Democratic nomination acceptance speech, he described the Kennedy/Reagan style across the board tax cuts as “that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.” Obama and the Democratic Congress chose to follow the Franklin Roosevelt New Deal model, and it has had the same results as it did in that era. Unemployment hovers at just over 9%, and the nation is not recovering from this recession at the same strong growth rates experienced in the ‘80s and ‘90s, when the GDP grew at 4 to 5% and more.

The surest way to get the country moving again is to cut taxes and regulations to encourage private sector growth. The money is there, but the unpredictability of this Administration’s policies keeps it on the sidelines. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s plan calls for just that prescription. Our corporate tax rate of 35% is the second highest in the industrialized world, making it very difficult for American businesses to compete, and since most of our small businesses are taxed at the individual income tax rate, they too are most often paying a top marginal rate of 35%.  Pawlenty’s plan would take our corporate rate down from 35% to 15%, thus making the American tax rate among the most competitive in the world, and further he would take the top personal income tax rate down to 25%. He believes these rates, combined with cutting the size and cost of government and red tape, can take our current anemic growth rate of 1 to 2% back to the 5% range and create millions of new jobs.

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 he said, “It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”  It is time to get this country moving again, and Kennedy, Reagan, and now Tim Pawlenty point the way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Big Government Failing - Documentary "I Want Your Money" Releases Today

The message of the documentary film I Want Your Money could not be more timely: Big Government hasn’t worked in the past, and it’s not working now. Proof can be found in the current debate regarding raising our National Debt ceiling: we reached our credit limit of $14.294 trillion on Monday of this week. Further, just last week the nation received a whiff of fiscal smelling salts, when it was reported that both Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent earlier than expected—Medicare in the next decade. If left unreformed, these programs face trillions in unfunded liabilities in upcoming years. As a reminder, a trillion is a million million dollars. On our current spending path, interest on the National Debt (approximately $200 billion last year) will likely become the largest single item in the federal budget by the end of the decade--greater than defense, greater than Social Security, and greater than Medicare. Enter the documentary film, I Want Your Money due out on DVD Tuesday, May 17th, which examines the perils of Big Government by comparing the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

In the months following Obama's and the Democratic Congress’ ascension to power, filmmaker Ray Griggs, like many Americans, became highly concerned, with the levels of deficit spending and the promises of new entitlement programs, despite the nation’s already precarious fiscal position. The Stimulus Bill sent up the first major red flare. As Congressman Thaddeus McCotter recounts in I Want Your Money, the President came into office and told Congress he wanted to spend a trillion dollars with interest. The Democratic majority agreed. They didn’t take the time to read the bill, and they passed it into law. That was only the beginning of the spending, which, when combined with lower revenues due to a slowed economy, resulted in a tripling of the previous year’s deficit of $455 billion to $1.4 trillion.

Griggs thought that perhaps he could use his filmmaking talents to put together a documentary film including expert interviews, graphics, and even cartoons all designed to communicate to the American people what a perilous place we were heading, if we continued down this path. Learning that I wrote about these topics and shared his concern, he asked if I’d like to write the script to the film. I immediately accepted and created a narrative for the shooting script based on articles that I had written about Big Government and government spending, among them,Obamanomics: Throw the Ring in the Fire, Remembering the Forgotten Man about FDR’s policies in the Great Depression, and how Obama’s were similar, Pilgrims Discover the Perils of Spreading the Wealth Around and America, Look to California’s Budget Crisis and Take Warning. Free to Choose by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman and The End of Prosperity by Art Laffer and Stephen Moore and some other works provided further intellectual backing. Stephen Moore would, in fact, become one of several valuable experts and leaders that we sat down with during the filming of I Want Your Money.

Shooting began, appropriately enough, at the 9-12 Rally on the Mall in DC in September 2009 and continued for several months at various points thereafter in New York City, DC again, Missouri and California, including some incredible location shots at the Reagan Ranch north of Santa Barbara from its high perch overlooking the Pacific Ocean. We interviewed people such as Steve Forbes, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, former Reagan Administration official Ed Meese, Mike Reagan, economists from the Heritage Foundation and Cato, social commentators Andrew Breitbart and Star Parker, and man-on-the-street interviews. In short, a lot of people came together to tell the story of how Big Government does not work.


Next came production of the cartoon segments. Mad Magazine artist Tom Richmond created the mock ups of all the characters: Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. and George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the three cartoon segments, Reagan tries to help Obama comprehend why Big Government just does not work. When it becomes apparent the younger Obama just is not open to reason, they decide the only way to settle their differences is the old fashioned way, “with gloves in the ring.”

A lot of hard work then went into post-production such as adding in the music (including an original theme song and score), determining the pacing, selecting the images, and creating the graphics that would fill in story. In my biased opinion the end result is very good, but others like it too. I Want Your Money was nominated for Movie Guide’s Faith and Freedom Award right next to the documentary Waiting for Superman and Toy Story 3. The trailers for the film have received over 4 million hits on YouTube, a record for a documentary film. A pre-release screening that I was able to attend in DC filled a 250-seat room to capacity, and the audience gave the film a standing ovation. It was very gratifying to see the project from its genesis of an idea to something people found both informative and entertaining. I hope you get a chance to see it too.


President Reagan’s answer--and our film’s answer--to Big Government is clear and just as relevant now as when he proclaimed it upon taking office in January of 1981, “It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles, there will be no compromise.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Conspirator" Provides a Timeless Lesson

I was skeptical when I learned of the Robert Redford-directed film The Conspirator, currently playing nationwide. I reflexively assumed that Redford, being far Left in political persuasion, would likely use the subject matter of the war trial of Confederate sympathizer Mary Surratt as a vehicle to bludgeon conservatives or anyone else--including the current President--who [delete apparently] realized the unfortunate necessity of Guantanamo Bay and military tribunals in prosecuting the War on Terror. If you really try, you can obliquely read a disapproving message in Redford’s movie about war trials in our day, but the story is really one of the dangers of victor’s justice, stirred by the passions of war, and it is a good lesson for any time.
 
Redford powerfully recreates the events of the night of Lincoln’s assassination, which sparked my initial main interest in seeing the film. The emotions stirred by our 16th President’s tragic death after Lee’s surrender, but before the Civil War had fully come to an end, and just the toll of the War on the American psyche become very real. The central characters in the story next emerge who include Surratt’s defense attorney Frederick Aiken, played by James McAvoy, Mary Surratt (Robin Wright), and Secretary of War Edward Stanton (Kevin Kline). Aiken is a Union Civil War hero, who as he learns more, comes to strongly believe a grave injustice is being done towards Surratt. Stanton’s main interest is seeing that justice is swift and certain. Because the John Wilkes Booth plot involved not only killing the President, but also Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward, Stanton is convinced the conspirators likely had Confederate government support. He knows a strong message must be sent that the war is over and acts of insurrection will not be tolerated.
 
The Conspirator becomes a little too talky and focused on scenes at the military tribunal during the first half of the film; however, the dramatic tension builds as you are drawn in and sympathize with the Sophie’s Choice Mary Surratt (regarding her own life) makes to protect her son. Meanwhile, Aiken endures increasing stigmatization by Washington society and even those closest to him as he crosses more and more thresholds that take him from a somewhat detached attorney to someone fully committed to seeing an act of injustice, contrary to our nation’s cherished rights, averted.
 
The Conspirator is the maiden film for The American Film Company, formed by Joe Ricketts, founder and former CEO of TD Ameritrade. Ricketts wasn’t seeing any films that he and his wife wanted to go to the theaters to see, so he decided to start The American Film Company for the purpose of telling compelling stories from our nation’s history. Their first effort fits the bill.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Two Recent Red County Articles

I've been picked up as a writer on Red County.  Check out my recent articles.

Will the American Experiment in Personal Liberty Continue?
"I went on a run the other evening on the Mall in Washington, DC going by the major monuments: the Lincoln, the Jefferson, the Washington, the World War II. I finished by running up Capitol Hill.  I’m always inspired on these runs, in particular seeing all the young people on their school field trips or with their families, reading the lighted marble walls, learning about our nation’s history. I get this inspiration regardless of whether it’s General Eisenhower’s order on D-Day, “You are about to embark on the Great Crusade towards which we’ve striven these many months,” or Thomas Jefferson penning, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, ”or Abraham Lincoln’s terse yet powerful Gettysburg Address, “that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause to which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”...(Read entire article here)

Will Obama Chart the Same Right Turn Clinton Embraced?
After running as a centrist, Bill Clinton in his first Inaugural Address in January of 1993 proudly announced, “Let us resolve to make our government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called ‘bold, persistent experimentation’” He then proceeded to try to add to Franklin’s New Deal legacy by attempting to pass universal healthcare and other new government initiatives. Clinton ultimately fell short of passing HillaryCare and suffered an historic reversal during the midterm elections where Republicans won both houses of Congress for the first time since the 1950s. What happened next? Clinton let up on the mainsail, came about and tacked hard back to the right. Three years after having come to office, he proclaimed in his 1996 State of the Union Address, “The era of big government is over…”  (Read entire article here
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leaders Who Speak the Truth: A Great American Tradition

Patrick Henry before the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1765. Speaking out against the Stamp Act. "If this be treason, make the most of it!"  

“Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth...”

Patrick Henry -- 1775

---------------------------------------------------------------

We, as a nation, have been blessed at critical junctures in our history to have leaders who understood the times and knew what America needed to do. Once again we find ourselves at one of those moments, and thankfully leaders are coming to the fore who are following in our nation’s best traditions of speaking the plain truth to the American people and trusting them to respond accordingly. These leaders have great examples in our past from which to draw inspiration. 

On March 23, 1775, when Patrick Henry rose to address the Virginia Convention, he had surveyed the political landscape and understood that the previous ten years had proven to him that the British Crown and Parliament intended to keep the colonies under their tyrannical yoke. The time for ceremony for Henry had long since passed. He said, “The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and 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, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.” He concluded with his renown rousing call to action. “Why stand we here idle?…I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Virginia heard Henry that day and voted to prepare for war. 

Abraham Lincoln shepherded the United States through another momentous and turbulent time.  In the years leading up the Civil War, he saw slavery splitting the nation apart and understood, “A nation divided against itself cannot stand.”  In the throes of the War a few years later, he said, “Fellows Citizens, we cannot escape history…In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.” Americans followed Lincoln and paid the price in hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve the union and end slavery. 

Franklin Roosevelt watched the Nazi menace rising in Europe during the 30s, and he could foresee a war on the horizon and wanted America to prepare for it. Supposedly with the signing of the Munich Agreement between Britain, France and Germany in 1938, the peace was secure in their time. Roosevelt saw things differently.  He told Congress and the American people, “A war which threatened to envelop the world in flames has been averted; but it has become increasingly clear that world peace is not assured.” He then made the unpopular case that America needed to prepare for war. As he drew his remarks to a close, Roosevelt said, “Once I prophesied that this generation of Americans had a rendezvous with destiny. That prophecy comes true...” That generation saved the “last best hope on earth” and rid it of tyrannies bent on world control.     

Ronald Reagan saw that Americans had another “rendezvous with destiny” during the 1980s as well. He watched the country he loved in trouble with a declining economy at home and the Soviet threat abroad. In his first Inaugural Address, he said, “We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.”  He exhorted, “The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.” Americans acted, and the economy recovered and then went on to unprecedented heights, and an Evil Empire came to an end. 

Yet again America finds itself at a cross roads with the future of the country at stake. Fortunately, a new group of leaders are coming to the fore who understand the times and know what we must do and are willing to speak the whole truth.  Whether it’s Governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Virginia’s Bob McDonnell, Ohio’s John Kasich, New York’s Andrew Cuomo, or the new House Budget Chair Paul Ryan. They are boldly and candidly saying it like it is.

Recently, Chris Christie perhaps said it best in his address to the American Enterprise Institute.  He pointed out that to keep our states and our nation from going bankrupt we needed to be honest about cutting pensions and benefits, and on the federal level Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He said if we did not, “We are teetering on the edge of disaster.” He also made reference to America’s ability to face the hard truths when the times require it. “I love when people talk about American exceptionalism, but American exceptionalism has to include the courage to do the right thing. It cannot just be a belief that because we are exceptional everything will work out okay. Part of truly being exceptional is being willing to do the difficult things.” 

We have been an exceptional nation because at crucial moments in our nation’s history we’ve been willing to do the right things. May we rise to the occasion in our time.     

--------------------------------------------------------------

Randy DeSoto is the writer and assistant producer of the documentary film I Want Your Money, which compares Ronald Reagan's and Barack Obama's views concerning the place of government in our lives.  He is also the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. He is a West Point and Regent University School of Law graduate 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Review of HBO Documentary "Reagan"

 

I was both hopeful and skeptical when I rolled into Park City in time for the Sundance Film Festival and saw posters plastered all over town promoting screenings of the HBO documentary film "Reagan."  While the festival is a wonderful venue for new talent and non-studio films to be showcased, it's no secret that the political films come almost exclusively from the Left. However, since "Reagan" was touted to be a definitive biographical look at the late President to commemorate his 100th birthday (to air on HBO Feb. 7), I held out hope for at least a somewhat balanced view.  Those hopes were largely dashed. 

The writer/director, Eugene Jarecki (who critiqued the cost and the perpetuation of war caused by the military industrial complex in 2005's Sundance award winning "Why We Fight"), made it clear in the Q and A that followed Reagan's screening that he had an axe to grind and wanted to demythologize the American folk hero; he wanted to knock him down a couple "notches." Jarecki said the intention of the film can be summed up by President Reagan's son Ron's observation in which he said in essence: "My father was not as great as conservatives make him out to be nor as evil as liberals would want us to believe." Sounds fair enough, but unfortunately the film "Reagan" focuses far more on disabusing the former than the latter.

The film opens with poignant footage from President Reagan's funeral.  The majesty of the event is on full display, and the purpose of its inclusion and placement is evident: "Does this man deserve this?" "Reagan" then follows chronologically his rise from modest Midwestern roots, son of a working class, alcoholic father, who beats all the odds. This segment includes rare footage of Reagan as a lifeguard in Dixon, Illinois. Ron Reagan believes his father's time as a lifeguard was formative, serving as a metaphor for his entire life. Reagan saw himself as a hero, who could save the day as he saved the lives of scores, and he almost always played the hero in his Hollywood roles.

As "Reagan" draws closer to his political life, the tone clearly changes. The harshest critiques are saved for the presidential years: Did Reagan restore optimism? Yes. Was it based on reality?  No.  It offers one of Reagan's favorite quotes from Thomas Paine's Common Sense, "We have it in our power to make the world all over again," to prove that Reagan really didn't traffic in the real world.  For Jareki, Reagan and those who supported him stuck their heads in the sand living off consumerism and false optimism and made the world far worse.  The greatest economic expansion since World War II is dismissed as Voodoo Economics. Liberal MIT economist Simon Johnson, journalist Mark Hertsgaard ("The Press and the Reagan Presidency"), and author Thomas Frank ("What's the Matter with Kansas") carry the water during this portion of the film. No mention is made of unemployment dropping in half to 5 percent or that the economy grew an entire third larger during the decade, or that the poverty rate went down, and that median incomes went up. The film argues that the Reagan tax cuts blew a hole in the federal budget, but the reality is that due to the fast rate of economic growth, federal income tax revenues doubled during the 80s. Meanwhile Reagan, even with a Democratic House, was able to limit the growth of domestic spending to its lowest rate since World War II. 

In the classic Liberal mindset, the film contends that the 80s represented a vast transfer of wealth away from the poor and middle class and to the well-to-do's, with the underlying assumption being that the money all belongs to the government to be doled out as it pleases. Never mind that the percentage of income tax revenue paid by the wealthiest Americans went up during the decade, while that of the poor and middle class went down. That is partly because Reagan's tax cuts were across the board. I asked Jarecki afterwards what is the alternative to the pro-growth economy championed by Reagan, the 70s?  In a friendly response, he said simply, "it's complicated." However, the film's message is clear: bigger government and learn to lower one's expectations. 

"Reagan" goes on to spend an inordinate amount of time on Iran Contra.  Ron Reagan is once again the main counterbalance offered saying that if his father did something wrong, his heart was at least in the right place. The film also holds that Reagan's tough stance towards the Soviet Union was unnecessarily provocative and that the regime would have collapsed soon enough anyway.

Jarecki clearly believes Ronald Reagan, by-in-large, helmed a failed presidency.  While purporting to provide a definitive account of Reagan's life, the film leaves out and distorts facts, offering instead a fanciful treatment of arguably the most consequential President since World War II.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the writer and assistant producer of the documentary film I Want Your Money, which compares Ronald Reagan's and Barack Obama's views concerning the place of government in our lives.  He is also the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: Same Old Deal

Vice President Biden may have unwittingly coined a phrase that could describe President Obama’s domestic agenda: the Big [expletive] Deal. Obama truly appears intent on fulfilling all the promises left undone by the New Deal (healthcare being first among them), despite history’s record that it, by-in-large, was a failure.
 
President Franklin Roosevelt was a true believer in Big Government’s ability to manage to the economy towards his desired political ends. In his Second Inaugural Address in 1937, even as the Great Depression entered its seventh year, FDR said, “I see a United States which can demonstrate that, under democratic methods of government, national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume of human comforts hitherto unknown, and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence...We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world” That last sentence sounds a little Lex Luther-ish, “I’m fashioning an instrument of unimagined power!” Yikes! You can almost hear an accompanying diabolical laugh. 
 
 
Talk about being deluded. When Roosevelt said these words, the unemployment still hovered at 15%, where it would stay for the rest of the decade. Many historians and economists including Amity Shlaes (author of The Fogotten Man), Stephen Moore (author of The End of Prosperity), and Burt Fulsom (author of New Deal or Raw Deal?) make a strong case that FDR’s intent on redistributing the wealth and managing the economy actually prolonged and indeed made the recession/depression of the '30s The Great Depression. The nation never experienced such a prolonged economic downtown before or since and other nations including most European nations and Canada recovered more quickly than the United States did. Roosevelt’s combination of high personal and corporate taxes, with a top bracket eventually reaching 80%, onerous regulations, and the famous Wagner Act which greatly empowered unions, made it very difficult for businesses to grow and invest and therefore hire new employees. Roosevelt wanted to create a society “free from want”, but what he ended up doing was doubling the National Debt and greatly damaging the economy. Does any of this sound familiar?  

Barack Obama, of course, famously made a very similar pronouncement about income redistribution to Joe the Plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success…I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The President had no qualms explaining he was willing to grow our gargantuan federal government even further to do it. In his Inaugural Address, he said, “Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans...The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” 

Three big problems that hurt the United States economy during the Great Depression are in play again: rising tax rates (starting next year), new regulations on business like Cap and Trade, and further empowerment of labor unions, this time through Card Check. Once again, including the mighty new healthcare entitlement, the National Debt is projected to double by the end of the decade (to $20 trillion: a trillion is a million million dollars), so that nearly a quarter of all federal tax revenues each year will be required just to pay the interest on the Debt. This will mean still higher taxes, and therefore further suppression of economic growth and more people looking to the federal government for help: it’s the New Deal Redux. The only thing giving the economy any respite now is that tax rates were brought down so much under President Reagan, with such great benefit to the economy, the public just won’t buy into the 70 and 80% top brackets seen under FDR: witness the Tea Party movement. 
 
Ronald Reagan had witnessed a couple these forays by the nation towards Big Government during his lifetime, including the New Deal, and his likely response to this latest iteration of it would be, "Well, there they go again."  In his re-nomination acceptance speech at the Republican Convention in 1984, President Reagan laid bare the essential Democratic playbook.  He asked, "Is there really any doubt at all about what will happen if we let them win this November?", to which the raucous crowd, several thousand strong, responded, "No!" as those in the audience did with each new item Reagan rattled off.  "Is there any doubt they will raise your taxes?...That they will make government bigger than ever?...And deficits even worse?...Raise unemployment?...Cut back our defense preparedness?...And they will do it all in the name of compasion...It's what they've done in the past, but if we do our job right, they won't be able to do it again."  The crowd roared, "Reagan, Reagan, Reagan!"
 
The Gipper continued, "Isn't our choice really not one of left or right, but up or down?  Down to the welfare state to statism, to more and more government largesse accompanied always by more government authority, less individual liberty and, ulimately, totalitarianism, always advanced as for our good.  The alternative is the dream conceived by our Founding Fathers, up to the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with ordered society.  We do not celebrate Dependence Day on the Fourth of July.  We celebrate Independence Day."  Amen!
-------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the writer and assistant producer of the documentary film I Want Your Money ,which is about the perils of big government, with an anticipated theatrical in September.  He is also the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Country Needs More Laffers

Not since Ben Stein’s economics class in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off has there been more ignorance in Washington about the basic truth of the Laffer Curve.  George Bush, the elder, in 1980 while running against Ronald Reagan may have called its basic premise, “Anyone?...  Anyone?...Something d-o-o economics,” but after a decade of the greatest economic expansion in United States history, a doubling of revenues to the treasury, and 17 million new jobs later, no one was calling it that anymore. 

The Laffer Curve 101.  Noted economist and Reagan economic advisor Art Laffer created the Laffer Curve back in the 1970s to explain a simple concept, which most people understand intuitively but perhaps couldn’t articulate as clearly as the diagram does below.  There is an optimum tax rate at which revenue is maximized to the government’s treasury (See curve below - Equilibrium Point).  If you raise rates above that point, you actually end up losing revenue (Point B below) because people choose to not engage in the activity being taxed whether it be from buying a more expensive car to starting a business.  Of course if you set tax rates too low, your economy should function well, but you may not have enough revenue to cover the government’s expenses.


The classic Liberal Left error in understanding the Curve is to think you can continue to raise taxes and people will not adjust their activity.  I witnessed this liberal mindset on full display at a state park that I’ve been going to for years here in the LA area.  As you probably know, California state government has been experiencing a revenue trough, more like a canyon.  One response to the over $40 billion shortfall in last year’s state budget was to threaten to close down many of its state parks.  Instead of closing my favorite and very popular park, it raised the entrance fee from $7 to $12.  What has been the response of the patrons?  Anyone?...Anyone?....  Le..e...ss cars paying to go on in the park.  The access road leading to the park’s entrance is now filled with dozens cars (maybe 50), where before you’d perhaps see one here and there: people are choosing to walk into the park rather than paying the higher entrance fee.  This new parking practice has actually created a driving hazard because the two-lane road is now down to one with cars filling the other.  I mentioned to one of the rangers, if they really wanted to take in more money for the park, they should lower and not raise the rate.  I suggested $5.  Would you rather have 200 cars at $5 (total $1000) or 50 cars at $12 (total $600)?  Of course the rate change is not handled locally it comes down from on high from Liberal thinking state bureaucrats.  No wonder California has experienced a net outflow of hundreds of thousands of jobs and over 1 million of its population during the last decade.     

            President Obama and the Congressional Democrats seem to be playing from the same playbook that has been disastrous here in California: out of control deficit spending with plans to raise both income and capital gains rates in 2011 to cover the shortfall.  Candidate Obama made his ignorance/defiance of the Laffer Curve abundantly clear during one of the Democratic Presidential Primary debates in the Spring of 2008.  Moderator ABC News’ Charlie Gibson asked him why he advocated  raising the capital gains tax after he became President. GIBSON: "You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent (from 20% rate Ronald Reagan initially was able to push through in the early 80s), the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected.  OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”  He went on to explain that some hedge fund managers were making large sums of money in the market and this money was by definition capital gains

            What didn’t Barack Obama understand in the facts that Charlie Gibson laid it out for him:  Lower the rate, raise the revenue.  Basic stuff.  A capital gains tax is a cost that you are placing on investing and growing businesses.  You increase the cost, you get less of it.  You get less people deciding to go in the park.  If that park happens to be California or the United States of America, it means more people are choosing to park their businesses in Mexico or China and create jobs there, instead of creating jobs here.

            President John Kennedy understood this basic truth of what makes economies grow and how to maximize revenues to the government.  In an Address to the Economic Club of New York in 1962, he said, “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now…The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”  

Kennedy continued, “I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe — and I believe this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”

            President Obama and the Congressional Democrats do not get this and say they will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011, which means an across the board tax increase for all Americans.  What will be the overall effect on revenues to the United States in the long term?  Anyone?... Anyone?...Le..e..ss, not more.   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy DeSoto writing and helping produce the documentary film I Want Your Money about the perils of big government and America’s slide towards socialism, with an expected release in theaters in September, 2010.  He also is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. 

Note: Art Laffer has co-authored a book with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal entitled Return to Prosperity in which he applies his supply side thinking to the economic problems facing the nation now. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialism v. Capitalism: Milton Friedman Revisited

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winning Economist

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Barack Obama, President of the United States 

What if I told you that a #1 New York Times Bestselling book in 1980 was one on economics?  Would you believe me?  Well, it’s true; the book’s title, Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman.  The nation was experiencing another economically turbulent time with high unemployment, an overblown bureaucratic welfare state, and high inflation, and the 1976 Nobel Prize winning economist Friedman and his wife were offering some answers.  Their message was simple: Capitalism has been the greatest creator of wealth and opportunity for the greatest number of people in world history.  The role of government in the economy should be limited to a few main functions of maintaining sound currency, enforcing contracts, and providing a limited safety net to assist those between jobs and those who truly cannot provide for themselves. 

Free to Choose was really a compilation of Milton and Rose’s economic thought and study over the previous 40 years.  One of the great insights in the book came in his critique of the “Cradle to Grave” socialism tried in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States starting with the New Deal in the 1930s.  In some Western European countries including France, Great Britain and Sweden whole industries like the coal, airline and even auto manufacturing were nationalized.  Of course in the communist Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries most major industries were nationalized.  The results in both the West and the East were predictable: without a profit motive, there was little incentive to serve the public, or to innovate or to remain a viable, freestanding business.  Why?  The government treasury was always available as the backstop, and what is more secure than a government, union protected (for those nations in Western Europe) job?  Benefits and pay could always go up and the amount of work required could always go down.  After nearly three decades of European socialism, the system was showing not only signs of fraying at the edges, but was coming apart at the seems.  Most government owned businesses operated in the red, and the nations' overall economies experienced low productivity, high unemployment and often large deficits.  The government simply could not create wealth and thereby jobs in any sustainable way.

The Friedmans write in Free to Choose that rare is the person (by 1980) who is still so brazen or misinformed to argue that government should take over the means of production anymore (though Democratic California Congresswoman Maxine Water threatened oil industry executives with just such a takeover).   The fall of the Soviet Union a decade after his book came out and the privatization of most nationalized industries in Western Europe proved Friedman right.  What still hasn’t been fully discredited, in the eyes of many, but should be, is redistributing the results of production (“spreading the wealth around.”)  In recent times, Europe is starting to get this message too, as witnessed by political turns to the right and away from wealth redistribution countries like Germany, France and Norway.  The government controlling the results of production runs afoul of the same principles that governments controlling the means of production does.  Businesses run on the collected work, drive and vision of the individuals in it, who are in turn individually motivated by recognition and compensation for the use of their talents.

The Friedmans cite the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, as proof of this aspect of our natures.  “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”   This equality is equality before God, not equality of outcome, and the “liberty to shape one’s own life” as Friedman puts it.  He adds, “Equality before God—personal equality—is important precisely because people are not identical.  Their different values, their different tastes, their different capacities will lead them to want very different lives.  Personal equality requires respect for their right to do so, not imposition on them of someone else’s value or judgment.”  When governments arbitrary come in and take one person’s hard-earned wealth in order to give it to another, it is violating the very purpose of government: to protect the citizens God-given rights.  Just because a majority may vote people into office who choose to do so makes it no less a tyranny.     

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and others from the Left are trying and have already begun to redistribute the results of production through tax credits in the Stimulus Bill (read cash giveaways) to all but the top 5% of wage earners including the 40% who have no income tax liability at all.  That same bill also gave billions in payouts to poorly run state governments, like California, so they can continue to pay ridiculous, union-inflated salaries and benefit packages to their employees.  California state employees earn on average 34% more than other state employees nationwide: 21% above that of fellow liberal and high cost-of-living Massachusetts for crying out loud.  (See William Voegeli's Failed State).  Such largesse is not limited to the state level however.  A recent study found that the number of federal employees making over $100,000 went up 5% since the recession began 18 months ago from 14% to 19%.  The average salary is now $71,206 vs. $40,331 for the private sector.  

The federal government has also ventured into now decades old discredited practice of taking over the means of production with its purchase of large portions of General Motors, AIG, Citibank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other entities.  In the case of GM, once again the American taxpayers’ hard-earned money (to the tune of $50 billion+) went to support union hyper-inflated salaries and benefits, so the company and the United Auto Workers and other unions do not have to face squarely what took GM to the point of insolvency.  It’s 1970s European socialism all over again.  Friedman would be absolutely amazed that Americans were so quick to forget the lessons of history.

 

Ronald Reagan (a student and friend of Friedman) rightly observed in his Republican Nomination Acceptance speech in 1984, “Isn't our choice really not one of left or right, but of up or down? Down through the welfare state to statism, to more and more government largesse accompanied always by more government authority, less individual liberty and, ultimately, totalitarianism, always advanced as for our own good. The alternative is the dream conceived by our Founding Fathers, up to the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society.  We don't celebrate dependence day on the Fourth of July. We celebrate Independence Day.” 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy DeSoto writing and helping produce the documentary film I Want Your Money about the perils of big government and America’s slide towards socialism.  He is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Documentary Film - "I Want Your Money"

Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast.  One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you; the other believes the elite in Washington know how to best allocate your wealth.  One champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans of improving one’s lot in life and even daring to dream and build big.  The other holds that the government should guarantee a certain outcome and minimize your upper reaches:  a “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs” philosophy.  Barack Obama calls this a bottom up approach, which must replace the “old discredited Republican philosophy-give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”  Well (to use one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite words), trickle down economics is capitalism--though it's more like a flow than a trickle--and it’s been the greatest creator of wealth, benefiting the most in society, of any economic system in history. 
President Barack Obama stated his views clearly in his famous interchange with Joe the Plumber.  “It’s not that I want to punish your success.  It’s better when we spread the wealth around.”  Socialism by another name, Joe thought.  Obama has made it clear that he does not care how big or how expensive government becomes during the spreading process.  In his Inaugural Address he said, "Now there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest our system cannot tolerate big plans...The question is not whether our government is too big or small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."  With a federal deficit approaching $2 trillion for 2009, and deficit projections of not less than a half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, the question of whether government is too big or too small is very relevant, even vital to the future of the nation
"  

Ronald Reagan came to office during another economically turbulent time, with unemployment on its way to over 10%, and double-digit inflation and interest rates; however, he knew in the end salvation rested not in big federal government programs or government takeovers, but rather in freeing individuals so they could achieve. During his Inaugural Address he said, “From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”  He instituted historic tax cuts and supported deregulation and sound fiscal policies that brought the inflation rate to under 5% and cut the interest rates by half.  Following Reagan economic philosophies, the 1980’s became one of the most prosperous times in American history.  Unemployment fell to under 5%, per capita income rose by 15%, and the economy grew an entire third larger.  President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress followed these principles, by-in-large, throughout the 90’s to the same booming effect.  Obama’s view that these principles are discredited is truly detached from reality.          

The documentary film I Want Your Money, due out next summer by RG Entertainment (co-written by yours truly), will contrast the two paths the United States can take using the words and actions of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.  It will also expose the high cost in lost freedom and in lost opportunity to support a Leviathan-like bureaucratic state.  Some of the major failed policies of the Far Left going back to the Great Depression and the Great Society will be examined too, and how Obama and the Congressional Democrats are simply trying to repackage and sell these stale, long discredited big government policies to the American people all over again.  California will be offered as a case study of what can happen to the United States if we continue down our current path. 

Finally, I Want Your Money will be a call to action to anyone who cares about the future of the United States.  Starting with the Congressional elections of 2010, the restoration of our country can and must begin.  To borrow a sentiment expressed by Thomas Paine in American Crisis, let it be said of this generation, that people of good sense, alarmed at a common danger to the nation, came forth in time to save it.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Colonel Chamberlain, Gettysburg, and the Cross

 
            I recently visited Gettysburg on the anniversary of the battle and, as with previous visits, I was drawn to Little Round Top, where Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his 20th Maine Regiment made their heroic stand on the second day of fighting. This time a parallel Chamberlain drew when speaking of the deeds done on the battlefield at Gettysburg hit me in a more profound way.    

Confederate cannon fire roared through the trees to greet the 450 soldiers of the 20th Maine Regiment as they made their way into position on the southeast side of Little Round Top Mountain at Gettysburg on July 2, 1863. The unit’s leader, Lieutenant Colonel Chamberlain received his orders from his commanding officer Colonel Strong Vincent: “I place you here! This is the left of the Union line. You understand. You are to hold at all costs.” In other words, allowing the Confederate Army to get around or through the 20th position would expose the Union line and put the entire Army at risk of being encircled from the front and the rear. The Confederates struck not long thereafter, and, thwarted on their first attempt, made repeated probing strikes looking for a weak point. The men from Maine put up a brave stand for over an hour in the late afternoon heat until finally a lack of ammunition and the unit’s own casualties (dead and wounded) were making holding their position untenable. According to his orders and in his own mind, retreat was not an option.  Chamberlain resolutely called out, “Bayonet!” His officers and sergeants echoed his command, “Fix Bayonets!” 

Two hundred men of the 20th who could still fight rose and fixed their bayonets on the end of their rifles. Then the fateful order came, “Charge!” His men rushed down the slope of Little Round Top yelling at the top of their lungs, not sure how many Confederate soldiers lie ahead nor whether death, maiming, capture, or in hope against all hope, victory awaited them at the other end. Chamberlain, sword drawn, rushed down the hillside with his men. The Twentieth's bold action caught the Confederate soldiers completely off guard. Some returned fire, but most fled in disarray down the hill as the men from Maine pursued. The 20th managed to capture approximately 300 of its foe going from almost certain defeat to a stunning victory.  They braced for a Confederate counterattack, but none came: the 20th by risking everything had fulfilled its mission.

Chamberlain received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions on Little Round Top. Looking back it is hard to say what caused the soldiers of the 20th Maine to act with such bravery that day. Chamberlain, a college English professor before the war, put it this way during the dedication of the Maine monuments at Gettysburg some years later: “We rose in soul above the things which even the Declaration of Independence pronounces the inalienable rights of human nature…Happiness, liberty, life, we laid on the altar of offering, or committed to the furies of destruction…We were beckoned on by a vision of destiny; we saw our Country moving forward, charged with the sacred trusts of man. We believed in its glorious career…[This is] why we fought for the Union.”

            Chamberlain closed expressing his heartfelt hope and expectation that others, in future times, would be inspired by the events of that day and throughout the war. “In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass; bodies disappear, but spirits linger, to consecrate the ground for the vision-place of souls. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream; and lo! the shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision shall pass into their souls. This is the great reward of service. To live, far out and on, in the life of others; this is the mystery of the Christ,--to give life’s best for such a high sake that it shall be found again in life eternal.”

            Chamberlain’s drawing of the parallel between the soldiers’ sacrifice and that of Christ, who set the ultimate example for all mankind, is appropriate. In both instances, the willingness to lay down one’s life resulted in great benefit to others. Thanks to the soldiers of the 20th Maine and the millions of others who have fought and far too often died we enjoy temporal liberty in this country; thanks to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross we can enjoy eternal life and liberty in God’s kingdom. At Little Round Top, Chamberlain saw no alternative if he was to fulfill His commander’s orders to hold the ground, but to place everything on the line and charge towards the enemy. Christ saw no alternative, if he was to fulfill his Commander’s mission of reconciling man to God, but to go to the cross on Calvary. Man stood guilty in God’s court of eternal justice and someone needed to pay the price. The Apostle Paul described it this way in his letter to the Philippians: “[Christ] humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” The result of Chamberlain’s obedience was the Medal of Honor and the praise and grateful adoration of future generations. The result of Christ’s obedience, again as Paul recorded, was that “God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name, which is above every name…”  

Chamberlain was right: in great deeds something abides, whether on the Battlefield at Gettysburg or much more profoundly on the cross at Calvary. May we all continue to be inspired by their example.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. 

  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Ideals of the 4th of July

   

 

Here's a perfect thing to get for the 4th of July holiday: my book We Hold These Truths. It's about the Declaration of Independence and how leaders have appealed to its ideals throughout our history. Get it for your family, your friends, your enemies (maybe they'll become your friends). Shameless plug, but what can I say the Fourth is my favorite secular holiday, and I like the author's take on the subject:

Two central beliefs in the Declaration of Independence have greatly shaped the United States and formed it into a country that is a beacon of liberty throughout the world. The first influential belief is that there is a providential God Who presides over the affairs of this world, and the second is that God has granted man inalienable rights. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower have appealed to these beliefs during some of the nation's most trying and defining moments, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. Unfortunately, these founding and sustaining visions are in danger of being lost today as indicated by the polarization over basic issues like the definitions of life and marriage. We Hold These Truths calls us to look back to the nation's foundational beliefs to regain vision for our day. 

Here are some key portions of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  Contained in this first paragraph is the belief that God has set up certain ageless laws over all His Creation, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."  The second paragraph now states, more specifically, the rights that are derived from those laws, and it's the most recognized portion of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The Declaration next lays out the grievances including among others: murdering colonists with impunity, shelling and burning coastal communities to the ground, disbanding local governments, levying taxes with no representation in Parliament, occupying Boston and imposing martial law, taking colonists captive and impressing them into military service, and charging colonists with crimes and shipping them back to England to be judged by people who were not their peers.

The Declaration closes stating a belief in the justice of the American cause and a belief in just God who would help them in the fight. 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.  

May this 4th of July remind us all once again that our most basic rights come from God and that He, in His Providence, still governs over the affairs of this world. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

North Korea: Was Gen. MacArthur Prophetic?

  
   

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
General Douglas MacArthur – Speech to a Joint Session of Congress, 1951 

This week marks the 59th Anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War, and the rhetoric coming out of North Korea is enough to get anyone’s attention.  During these last few days, Kim Jong-il’s regime has threatened to wipe the United States from the globe if it seeks to enforce the UN sanctions blocking proliferation of the communist nation’s nuclear weapons. The regime followed this threat with the promise of raining a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” if we take any form of military action against it.  Such belligerent statements by North Korea make General Douglas MacArthur warning regarding the dangers of appeasement offered during the Korean War appear extremely prophetic. 

In June of 1950, when the North launched its attack against South Korea, President Harry Truman responded by sending American troops to fight with the South.  All looked lost when the North’s forces surrounded the Americans and South Koreans on three sides with their backs to the sea centered around southeastern port city of Pusan.  General Douglas MacArthur, the World War II hero and newly named commander, conceived a plan to conduct a bold amphibious landing further up the peninsula behind the North Korean lines, thereby placing the enemy forces in a pincer between Allied units in both directions.  The plan worked masterfully, causing the North Korean forces to fall into full retreat.  The Allies managed to push what was left of the Korean Army north of the original border and kept on rolling. The goal was no longer to leave the Korean peninsula divided, as it had been prior to the conflict, but united as one country.   

China did not approve of this plan and responded by sending a force of over 1 million soldiers to the aid of the North Koreans.  They pushed the Allies back below the previous border between North and South.  In order to fight this new war MacArthur requested permission to: 1) bomb the Chinese Army’s staging areas north of the Korean border; 2) implement a naval blockade of China’s coast; and 3) allow the millions of exiled Chinese, living in present day Taiwan, to join on the Allied side.  President Truman, not wanting to widen the war, refused all three requests.  MacArthur came to quickly realize there was going to be no way for complete victory in the Korean War if all means of denying the enemy reinforcements and supplies were not going to be used.  In frustration, MacArthur began to publicly state what he believed was necessary to win and those pronouncements stood in direct opposition to President Truman’s plans to limit the fighting to the Korean peninsula.  When MacArthur persisted, Truman relieved him of his command. 

MacArthur returned to the United States to a hero's welcome with massive tickertape parades, as well as a request to speak to a joint session of Congress. The General took the occasion to warn the members of Congress and the country of the perils of not fighting the Korean War to win it.  He said, "There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.” The examples of the truce ending World War I, where 15 million died begetting another war with Germany leading to three times that number dying and, in more recent times, the Gulf Wars I and II bear out the General’s observation. MacArthur added leaving the aggressor in power ultimately, “Like blackmail…lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative.”


The President and the Congress did not follow General MacArthur’s advice in 1951. The Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice leaving the aggressor Kim Song-il’s father, the dictator Kim Il-Jong, in power.  North Korea and China signed the truce, but the underlying issue leading to the war (the North's intention to make the entire peninsula a communist state) was never resolved.  As MacArthur predicted, the aggressor nation has employed blackmail tactics throughout the years to tune of tens of billions of dollars in aid being paid by South Korea, Japan and the United States. Despite all of it, the North has issued its most provocative threats to date, and conducted unsanctioned nuclear bomb and missile tests, which if allowed to continue, will
place Hawaii, Alaska and the West Coast in peril very soon. China appears content to wait on the sidelines and let crisis play out. The use of U.S. military strikes is rapidly becoming our only alternative. 
 
Fifty-eight years have passed since General MacArthur predicted the cost of leaving the North Korean regime in place. Short of some radical change in policy, North Korea will have to be opposed by force. We are left to pray that somehow history’s lesson can be circumvented and a full-scale war will not result.   

---------------------------------------------------------------

Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. 

     
Tags: North Korea  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yes on 8 - The Update - Same-Sex Marriage

The rule of law prevailed this week in California. The state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the people can amend their constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.    California was only joining twenty-nine other states and the federal government, which have passed legislation strengthening the legal protection of the traditional definition of marriage.
 

Those opposing Proposition 8 had a strange argument to make indeed: “The state constitution is unconstitutional.” Chief Justice Ronald George, writing for the majority, laid out the case plainly: "In a sense, petitioners' and the Attorney General's complaint [opposing Proposition 8] is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process, but it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it." 

What a refreshing statement regarding the proper role of judges in this day when far too many are willing to engage in strained legal interpretations or to outright ignore the law if the outcome is not to their liking.  Such was the case last May when the same Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the California Constitution required the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The reasoning employed was: 1) The ability to marry is a fundamental right. 2) Some people would prefer to marry someone of the same sex. 3) Therefore same sex couples have the right to marry. The only problem with the reasoning was that the fundamental right to marry has always been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman. In fact in 2000, the people of California passed a ballot initiative specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman, so there would be no confusion. When the CA Supreme Court struck down this measure last May, those in favor of traditional marriage had already begun the more difficult task of passing a constitutional amendment.  They succeeded in November, and the Court has now rightly recognized their right to do so. 
  

However, now comes the next challenge to Proposition 8 and all state measures defining marriage as between a man and a woman; this time under the United States Constitution in federal court.  It's almost like the end of the second sequel to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy when Gandalf announces that the Battle of Helm's Deep has been won but the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin.  High powered opposing counsels in Bush v. Gore (2000)--Ted Olson and David Boies--have joined forces and taken up the cause of striking down Proposition 8.  If their case goes to United States Supreme Court, which is likely will, and they succeed, it will have the effect of mandating same-sex marriage nationwide.  Their complaint to federal court states, “It is impossible to reconcile the restrictions that Prop. 8 imposes on the right of gay men and lesbians to marry with the U.S. Supreme Court’s conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of all citizens to make personal decisions about marriage without unwarranted state intrusion.” 

The United States Supreme Court has not actually said that or otherwise all state laws defining marriage as it's always been understood would already be unconstitutional. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court did strike down a state sodomy law, finding it to be an unconstitutional intrusion into peoples' sexual lives.  Lawrence actually overruled another Supreme Court decision issued only seventeen years before in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) that stated the Constitution was silent on the matter so states were free to pass or repeal laws addressing the practice.  Though all states once had anti-sodomy laws even by the time of Bowers in 1986 the majority did not and by the time of Lawrence less than ten did. 

Justice Antonin Scalia pointed in his dissent in Lawrence that state governments pass laws addressing peoples' private sexual lives all the time including anti-polygamy laws, incest laws, child molestation laws, laws against prostitution, to name some.  To say people have a newly discovered, fundamental right to make their own private sexual choices without state intrusion would negate all these laws.  He further predicted that state courts would take this new found Constitutional right to sexual identity and use it justify striking down state laws that define marriage as only being between a man and a woman.  Four months later, the state of Massachusetts did just that.  Others followed including Iowa and California (hence the Proposition 8 amendment in response).       

 

Six years after Lawrence the pieces are now in place.  Will the United States Supreme Court pull another Dred Scott (which struck down laws throughout the United States restricting the growth of slavery) and impose its will on all the United States regarding same-sex marriage or will government of, by, and for the people be the touchstone of the American political experience?  We will all have to wait and see. 

  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to the beliefs in God's Providence and inalienable rights throughout our nation's history.       
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »