Tea Party mission statement

I would like to suggest adoption of a Mission Statement for the Tea Party. The idea is that actions taken on behalf of Tea Party candidates, such as developing a platform, composing advertising or position statements, etc, should be measured against the Mission Statement prior to public distribution. It could also be an easy way to introduce new people to the campaign and the larger movement.

The following draft was given to me by someone from the Florida Tea Party. They have adopted it as their own. I really like it, and would like to hear what others think.

[[MORE]]-----

Tea Party Mission Statement

We uphold and affirm the natural rights of every individual, regardless of race, creed or national origin, to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; rights to which the founders of our nation pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

We hold that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of all citizens at the expense of none; to protect its citizenry from force, fraud, and breach of contract, thereby allowing all citizens to dispose of the products of their thoughts and labor as they see fit.

We recognize that free trade and free markets—the voluntary exchange of goods and services—are responsible for the unprecedented wealth and prosperity of our nation; and that such are both practical and morally necessary for human dignity, prosperity and enjoyment of life on earth.

While we respect the generosity of individuals who willingly give to charities and causes, we reject the premise that one person's “need” constitutes an enforceable claim on another's life, and that such a claim can or should be fulfilled through government force or coercion. We advocate the principles of fiscal responsibility in government policies.

We acknowledge and support all who through their courage and loyalty have served in any of the armed services of the United States of America and through their efforts have secured our country's existence and safety for this and future generations.

To further this vision of the United States of America, we pledge to provide a common ground for civil discourse for our members and like-minded individuals and encourage them to support candidates for—and holders of—public office whose positions are consistent with these principles.

Should the US sell the gold in Fort Knox?

There has been some talk recently about whether the US should sell the gold it has in Fort Knox, as a way of offsetting the budget deficit.

There are reasons to suspect that the gold in Fort Knox may not be there. GATA has shown evidence of a very active program of the government leasing gold to so-called “bullion banks,” as a way of generating a return on an otherwise stagnant asset. However, in spite of that, let’s assume for the moment that the gold either is there, or can be readily recovered.

Governments and central banks have a history of holding gold, for good reasons. In World War II, a number of countries that the US government did business with would not accept dollars in payment, nor would the US accept their currencies. Many war supplies could only be purchased with gold; it was a major medium of exchange during a period of shortages and substantial uncertainty. In that sense, it is a strategic asset.

[[MORE]]Another reason central banks hold gold is in case of a currency collapse. If the dollar becomes worthless, having a large store of gold would allow a “reboot” of some kind.

In fact, I would like to suggest that the reasons central banks hold gold are the same reasons individuals should; not as an investment per se, but as a form of insurance.

This also suggests that selling the central bank’s gold would be a bad idea without other substantial changes happening first. If anything, I would argue for the reverse. Since we are clearly in the middle of a long-duration crisis, it would seem like the time to increase insurance, rather than eliminate it. However, the situation might change if the US were to adopt gold as currency again; not by backing the dollar with gold, but by repealing the legal tender laws, not taxing gains on the sale of gold, and allowing it to circulate on a by-weight basis as an alternative to the dollar. In that case, it’s possible that the resulting durable wealth of the people might be able to take the place of the central bank’s holdings – whereas if the gold is simply sold, the most likely buyer would be other central banks (as happened when central banks in Europe sold their gold).

In addition, the oft-repeated meme that the government “stole” the gold from citizens doesn’t paint the full picture. It’s true that FDR required people to turn in their gold. However, they were given paper money in exchange – money which could be spent in the same way as gold. It was the subsequent act of devaluing the dollar that was the real theft, as inflation is today.

Socratic questions: social, economic, political or ethical

I thought it might be interesting to put together a list of Socratic questions that highlight a contradiction in popular social, economic, political or ethical thinking, in such a way that it helps people think about complex issues.

Here are a few that I came up with. If you can think of any to add to the list, I would love to see them.

1. Why do labor unions insist that their employers "share the wealth," while they refuse to share in any of the losses?


2. If education should be free, why do teachers and their unions demand (and receive) such high salaries?


3. Why are the politicians who preach economic egalitarianism so strongly against a system with true political equality?


4. Why are parents chastised for not spending enough time with their children, while also being forced to send their kids away to public schools all day?


5. Since initiating force against another person is immoral, how can you justify legislating morality, since it requires force?


6. If people making over $200,000/yr are considered rich and evil capitalists, why are the public and union employees who make that much considered "deserving"?


7. Why does government expect us to obey the laws they pass, when they exempt themselves from many of them, and when they refuse to follow the Constitution?


8. How can government protect my freedom by violating my rights?


9. If more legislation is the answer, how much will be enough?


10. If money (or the love of money) is evil, why do you use it?


11. How many poor people have you ever worked for?


12. Why do so many Black Americans embrace Christianity, a religion which was imposed by force on their slave ancestors?


13. Why does getting elected to public office entitle elected officials to spend public tax money for their own personal holidays?


14. If equal pay for equal work is a good thing, why isn't it OK for someone not to be paid for doing nothing?

Out of control state occupational licensing

According to a Feb 7 article in the Wall Street Journal, more than 1,100 occupations in the US now require state licensing; everything from florists to barbers to people giving massages. In 2008, an astounding 23% of US workers required state licensing and approval to perform their jobs, up from 5% in 1950.

The article points out that “licensing mostly serves as a form of protectionism, allowing veterans of the trade to box out competitors who might undercut them on price or offer new services.” It also quotes a labor professor from the Univ. of Minnesota, “Occupations prefer to be licensed because they can restrict competition and obtain higher wages,” and “If you go to any statehouse, you'll see a line of occupations out the door wanting to be licensed.”

In other words, using the force of government to limit competition and keep prices artificially high – another flavor of the same problem that has corrupted labor unions and many industries.

I’d like to suggest two straightforward and principled ways to address the high unemployment rate: abolish all occupational licensing requirements, and eliminate the minimum wage. Not only would more people be employed, but prices for those of us who use such services would decline, and the overall quality would likely improve as service providers became more competitive.

Social Security EFICA reporting

We won’t reach the goal of sunsetting Social Security without substantial public support. Although the moral arguments are strongest, they can also take a while to be broadly accepted. In the short term, one step in generating additional support could be to increase awareness of the fact that we are actually taxed at twice the rate shown on our paystubs; something that I don’t think is widely understood.

In addition to the FICA deduction, your employer pays the same amount again on your behalf, as EFICA. However, the way the law is now, employers are forbidden from showing EFICA on your paystub. Such an implementation of the tax was clearly chosen as a way of hiding its magnitude from those who pay it.

I’d love to see that law expunged, and to have employers report not just EFICA on your paystub, but all other fees that they pay for you. Even better would be to abolish the EFICA deception all together; but that's a much bigger step than a simple change in reporting. The message would be clear, and the motivation for change selfish: if your employer didn't have to pay EFICA, your take-home pay could be higher.

Morally, forbidding companies from showing EFICA requires them to commit a form of fraud; companies are being forced to deceive their employees about the true nature of their wages and the related deductions.

Even if such a law change wasn’t passed, the debate alone has the potential of generating substantial public awareness by exposing the deception.

Why is pride a sin?

The Oxford English Dictionary has two relevant definitions for pride:

1. A feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one‘s own achievements, the achievements of one’s close associates, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired
2. The quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's importance

It seems to me that the Christian sin is the second one.

For the first form, it seems to me that pride has to be earned; it's not something that one can just feel whenever one wishes. I can see how false pride would be a bad thing, but that's really a form of arrogance.

Aristotle considered pride the greatest of all virtues. It's a big leap from there to the worst of all sins.

For me, pride is a psychological reward that we earn from living our values; from being just, honest, having integrity, and so on. Living unethically destroys the chance for pride -- so I don't understand how that goes along with pride being a sin.

Perhaps it's that in order to feel pride, one must live for themselves? Is that the aspect that's sinful?

Hypothetical speech in Congress

For those who hope for an honest Congress, the result might not be as you expect. Here's a hypothetical speech showing what we might hear today:

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Fellow members, I rise to ask your support for a new bill. After 30 years in Congress, my approach today will be completely new.

Like the rest of you, I’m a habitual liar; I’ve always considered it to be part of the game of politics. The press and the public seem to know I’m lying, but they never say anything or call me on it. Frankly, even though I don’t see anything wrong with lying, I’m tired of it. It takes way too much work, and the public’s memory is so short that I can screw up in the most horrible ways outside of election season, and still get re-elected if I play my cards right. So, I have decided to use a different approach. I am going to stop lying while I’m on the floor of the House, except during the 90 days before an election, when the voters in my district will believe anything that I say, as long as I act sincere enough.

[[MORE]]The title of my new bill is the Encouraging Class Warfare Act of 2011. So far, it’s about 2,000 pages long. The bill was written by one of the lobbyists for my largest campaign contributor. They assure me that if the bill passes, not only will they will funnel huge amounts of money into my campaign, but they will also feed me all sorts of inside information that I can pass to my friends and family. They also throw really great parties.

I haven’t read a single page in the bill. I don’t really care what’s in it. Some intern on my staff said it would cost billions of dollars. So what? I know you couldn’t care less about what’s in it, either. Like we always do with these things, if you can get some details to my staff about the current hot buttons in your district or for your lobbyists, I will make sure those items get included in the bill too, so we can all feel comfortable about voting for it.

If someone asks you whether you’ve read the bill, you might try my approach. Just say something like “of course not; no one actually reads bills anymore.” Or, “another member (or the President) said he likes this bill, so of course I’m going to vote for it.” Or even, “hey, this bill has lots of pork in it that’s important to my lobbyists!”

Another kid on my staff said something about the bill not being constitutional. I laughed so hard, I nearly blew a gasket. The kid is out on his ear now, of course. I can’t have anyone who cares about such dated and limited notions working for me.

As to how the bill will be paid for, well of course we can’t raise taxes. The people in my district expect me to lie, but they don’t like it when their take-home pay goes down. So, as usual, we will use deficit spending instead. I might even include a small tax cut in the bill, just for fun. No one dares vote against a bill that cuts taxes.

I love inflation! As a hidden tax, it’s the perfect way to raise money, because no one notices slow declines in the purchasing power of the dollars they receive. Even better, we can lay the blame on the evil companies who make the stuff people buy. They are, after all, the ones who are raising prices, not us. Just think about this: since we stopped using silver in our money in the mid-1960’s, the value of a dollar has gone down by about 90%. That means, we, as government, have been able to take 90% of the value of what people have saved, and spend it on our pet projects. How wonderful is that!? We never could have accomplished that level of spending through straight taxes.

Another very cool thing about inflation is that by taking money from the productive people in the country, it helps achieve one of my long-term goals, which is equality for everyone. I hate the idea of anyone having any more than anyone else. I would rather everyone be equally poor than to have anyone be richer than anyone else. After all, if someone is rich while someone else is poor, the rich person should have wanted to help the poor person. Since he didn’t help, it’s our responsibility to right that wrong.

Of course, while I say “rich,” the middle class is really the main target of these attacks. After all, the middle class is where the bulk of the real wealth and earning power is in this country. I say “rich” because they are such an easy target; I love the idea of class warfare, hence the title of my bill. Even though I’m rich, as are my family and friends and all of you, as usual we exclude ourselves from bills like the one I’m putting forward today, while continuing to use and spend the public’s money for personal gain in both property and power. Remember, even after all wealth besides our own has been destroyed, the poor will still need someone to guide and care for them; to make sure that they don’t hurt themselves. We must work to abolish all pain, especially the pain of envy – unless, of course, that pain is for their own good.

Oh, and for those of you who think that deficit spending can’t go on forever: well, you’re right, of course. But it will be a great ride. One of my buddies at Goldman has even helped me use the turmoil to play several of my campaign contributors off against one another. Wonderful times ahead!