Common Sense Government Blog

By John Eberhard

Liberals in America, and President Obama in particular, have made a lot of noise in recent years about “fairness,” or “social justice.” Obama’s message is that some people have too much money, and way back in 2008 on the campaign trail, he told Joe the Plumber that everyone benefits when we spread the wealth around.

Since then he has demonized the wealthy, and stated repeatedly that they are not paying their “fair share” in terms of taxes.

Let’s take a look at some of these basic, fundamental assumptions. This idea is that a system that allows some people to make lots of money while others have far less, is fundamentally unfair. So to address this, Obama and other liberals seek to implement redistribution of wealth, heavily taxing the wealthy and giving that money to those with less money.

Just in case anyone does not know, redistribution of wealth is an idea that originated with Karl Marx in “The Communist Manifesto.” I recommend reading it if you have not. Many liberals today scoff at and try to misdirect us from this fact, but it is true that redistribution of wealth is a socialist/communist idea, that has been gaining more and more traction in the United States for the last 80 years.

Redistribution of wealth is already in existence in America in many different forms, from progressive taxation (where those with higher incomes pay higher percentages of taxes), to welfare, to food stamps.

But let’s take a look at another issue related to this that I have never seen discussed anywhere else. Let’s examine the issue of “fairness.” What is fairness really?

Liberals believe that fairness exists when you take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor, so that the amount of money everyone has tends to even out. This is the egalitarian model or concept. Everyone is supposed to have the same or similar amounts, or “equal outcomes.” This supposedly eliminates the “unfair” situation of some having more money than others.

But who is that concept of “fairness” fair to? What group does it emphasize? What group does it put all of our attention on? And what group are the liberals mainly thinking about in their equations?

The poor of course. All of liberals’ concentration is on the poor. They put all of their attention onto the least productive members of society. All of their systems and policies and regulations are built around helping the least productive members of society and flowing more money to them.

What about the most productive members of society, entrepreneurs and business owners? They are routinely demonized, and taxed at higher and higher levels. Is this system fair to them? Not only is the redistribution model not fair to the most productive members of society, it doesn’t ever even worry about what’s fair to them. It does its best to penalize them.

There are certain individuals who make society function. Not only are these people not being rewarded for their efforts, they are being stamped upon.

The top 1% in terms of taxable income paid 37% of all taxes in American in 2009. The top 10% in terms of taxable income paid 70% of all taxes. See here. Yet Obama says they are not paying their fair share and need to pay more.

By viewing the graph on this page, you can see that the percentage of overall taxes paid by the top 1% has been rising since 1980, from 19.05% in 1980 to 38.02% in 2008. That’s nearly doubling in 28 years, for the math challenged.

And the percentage of overall taxes paid by the bottom 50% has fallen during that time, from 7.05% in 1980 to 2.7% in 2008. And 49% of all US households paid no taxes at all in 2008.

Beyond that, we could look at the idea of incentives. There is an old saying that if you want to get rid of something – tax it. And if you want to get more of something – subsidize it. So as far as incentives go, we are encouraging people to produce less, by heavily taxing those who produce and giving handouts to those who don’t work.

And beyond that, what liberals are creating is a large dependent class, people who are losing the ability to fend for themselves and who without that government handout, would fall flat. Is that “fair” to those people? Is it “fair” to the poor to make them dependent on the government?

I will take it out of the realm of a rhetorical question by answering it. NO! It is not fair. It is not fair to the poor to make them more dependent. It is not fair to the country to create a huge dependent class. It is certainly not fair to those who actually create all the wealth and jobs and prosperity in this country to demonize and tax them to death.

Demonizing those who own businesses and create wealth is another major point directly out of the “Communist Manifesto” (written by a man who barely worked a day in his life). Today we call it “class warfare” and Obama is one of its biggest proponents.

What is Fair?

True fairness is for people to be able to keep the fruits of their labors. True fairness is for people to have a chance to provide for themselves and be truly independent. True fairness is allowing those who are ambitious to work harder than others and make more money, and to be able to keep the lion’s share of that money. And true fairness is where everyone would pay taxes for the government services that they receive, at the same percentage of their income.

By John Eberhard

I recently spoke at a political forum in Glendale, CA. I decided, in light of the Occupy Wall Street protesters spouting Marxist complaints that were old 100 years ago, that it would be good to “get back to basics,” by which I mean taking a look at definitions of some of the basic words and ideas that make up politics. I also videoed the forum and if I have time I’ll edit and post video of it.

This article is a modified version of my talk at that recent forum.

We’re going to cover definitions and basic ideas of several political philosophies.

Many of these definitions have changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and many dictionaries feature outdated and incorrect definitions. I have endeavored to find definitions which reflect the current reality.

Capitalism

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Yahoo Education

“An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”

Merriam Webster.com

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Merriam Webster.com

“A political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people. The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, with the ideal of social justice replacing the profit motive. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, although many social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid (once derided by their opponents as “socialized medicine”) and Social Security are socialistic in effect, since they are controlled by the government and effect a measure of income redistribution that could not happen if market forces were the sole factor in the economic life of society.”

American Spirit Political Dictionary
(Unfortunately at this time this excellent dictionary is no longer online)

Communism

“The political system under which the economy, including capital, property, major industries, and public services, is controlled and directed by the state, and in that sense is “communal.” Communism also involves a social structure that restricts individual freedom of expression. Modern communism is based on Marxism, as interpreted by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin (1870-1924).”

American Spirit Political Dictionary

Liberalism

“In political speech now in the U.S. a liberal is a person who believes it is the duty of government to ameliorate social conditions and create a more equitable society. Liberals favor generous spending on the welfare state; they exhibit a concern for minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged and often see these conditions as a product of social injustices rather than individual failings. This also applies to crime and juvenile delinquency, where liberals are as concerned with removing the social causes of such behavior as they are with detection and punishment. Liberals also tend to be concerned about environmental issues, the defense of civil liberties, and do not favor excessive military spending. The label of liberal is something that many politicians now seek to avoid, since it is out of keeping with the public mood. In the presidential campaign of 1988 George Bush used this to telling advantage, labeling his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis a liberal, and making the term sound subversive and un-American. President Clinton tried to distance himself from traditional liberalism in his campaign of 1992, calling himself a New Democrat instead.”

American Spirit Political Dictionary

Liberal Policies

• Higher taxes
• More spending
• Big government
• More of the welfare state
• Redistribution of wealth
• Favors affirmative action
• Favors government funded health care (Democrats voted in Obamacare)
• Against federal immigration laws
• Many against gun ownership
• Gay rights
• Environmental movement
• Pro abortion
• Victimology

Currently liberalism is very much aligned with Democratic Party leadership nationally in the U.S.

Conservatism

“A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)”

Merriam Webster.com

Conservative Policies

• Lower taxes
• Less spending
• Smaller government
• Against the welfare state
• Believe wealth belongs to those who earn it
• Against affirmative action
• Against government funded health care (No Republicans voted for Obamacare)
• Some for and some against federal immigration laws
• Most favor gun ownership
• Many against gay rights
• Many against the environmental movement
• Many, not all against abortion
• Believes in personal responsibility rather than victimology

This list contains what I observe to be true conservative principles, which are not necessarily the same as what all Republicans stand for. However, all true conservatives are in the Republican Party. Most of the above are what the Tea Party stands for.

Keynesian Economics

“The economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically : the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending”

Merriam Webster.com

“Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.”

“Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.”

Wikipedia

“The idea that large increases in government spending will bring the economy out of recessions and depressions”

John Eberhard
(I added this definition myself to try to simplify things)

Marxism

• History’s defining element is the class struggle, i.e. rich against poor
• Assigns victim status to poor, they are victimized by business owners who grow rich off of their work
• Redistribution of wealth
• Hostile to business owners, sees them as victimizing workers
• Government takes over business
• Throw out the business owners and executives. The people then run the businesses.

When you see these ideas today, you will know where they came from.

Interesting note: Marx, who wrote extensively about the plight of the worker, barely worked a day in his life himself, living first off his mother, then off his friend Frederick Engels after his mother died.

Cultural Marxism

• Expands on the idea of Marxism, with its victimization of the poor, to other groups that it considers have been victimized (blacks, women, Hispanics, gays)
• Idea of redistribution of wealth or advantage to favored groups considered victimized
• Origin of affirmative action

2011 Gallup Poll

• 42% conservative
• 37% moderate
• 21% liberal

In past Gallup polls going back to the 1960s, the liberal element has never numbered over 22%.

Interesting to note that a segment numbering 21% happens to control all the mainstream media, Hollywood, and college faculties today

Quotes from Jefferson

 “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Thomas Jefferson

“It is incumbent, obligatory, necessary, required, mandatory and binding on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. This is a principle, which if acted upon, would save one-half the wars of the world.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“The pillars of our prosperity are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Untitled Document

Marketing in Cleveland By John Eberhard (Note: I recently sent out this article in my marketing newsletter, then realized it is just as valid as a political commentary.) This article is going to be a bit different than most of my Internet marketing articles. This one is more about economics. Back in August I traveled to Cleveland, Ohio, where I grew up, to spend a few days visiting with my father who was 92 years old and whose health was failing. In the past few days I visited Cleveland again to pay my final respects. During the first trip in August I drove around my old stomping grounds – where we lived when I was younger on the east side of Cleveland, and then where we lived when I was in junior high and high school on the west side. I was struck, particularly on the west side, with how economically depressed the area seemed. The houses still seemed well maintained, but many of the businesses were vacant and the area had the feel of a ghost town. It was starkly different from when I grew up there, and starkly different from where I live now in Los Angeles, which seems more active and vibrant economically. Of course I know that the U.S. and the world really is in a major recession. So businesses are hurting everywhere. But the west side of Cleveland seemed particularly hard hit. What caused this major shift, with Cleveland being listed as one of the most economically depressed cities in the U.S.? And what do they need to do to come out of it? The Third Wave So now I’m going to get all philosophical and intellectual on you (you’ve been warned). A few years ago I read a book called “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler, the author of Future Shock. In the book Toffler discussed what he characterized as the “third wave,” basically the information age or the computer age, with the first wave having been the agricultural age and the second wave being the industrial age. One of the aspects of the information age which Toffler described was that different countries entered each of these ages at different times. So countries like the U.S. and the UK and other European countries that had entered the industrial age relatively early on, were now leading the way into the information age. And another aspect of this was that previously undeveloped countries were now entering the industrial age. What I realized from this was that in the 21st century, there would be a sort of division of labor between countries. Previously second or third world countries, as they entered the industrial age, would now become the centers of heavy industry for the world, handling things like steel production. And early industrial countries like the U.S. would now lead the way with information products, like computers and software and high tech. Following this line of reasoning, you could look at previously heavy industrial areas like Cleveland and Detroit, and where heavy industry had left, you’d be pretty certain that they weren’t going to come back again. When I was a kid Cleveland had been a heavy steel and auto production town. Many of my friends’ fathers worked in the steel mills. Now those mills are gone. In fact, there is a big shopping mall there where the big steel mill used to be. Now we could argue about what caused the steel factories to leave, and maybe it was the unions, and I’ve heard people argue that it is bad that we now get most of our steel from Korea. And we could look at how the unions have affected the big U.S. car companies and how they have all been in or close to bankruptcy. And I’ve heard people argue that it is bad that we now depend on other countries for certain products, and that we as a country need to be self contained and totally self sufficient and produce everything we need. While I do agree that the U.S. needs to be more energy self sufficient, I do not feel we are ever going to get the toothpaste back in the tube when it comes to heavy industry leaving the United States. Many of these other countries have lower wage levels and it makes sense business wise to have them do the manual labor, industrial type jobs. So where does that leave the U.S.? And where does that leave Cleveland? And what do businesses in Cleveland need to do to get back to vibrant condition? Well what Cleveland needs is the same thing that any other city needs. And what businesses in Cleveland need to do is the same as what businesses everywhere need to do: Accept that we are in a new age, an age where the U.S. is and will be dominated by information or technology oriented products and businesses. Innovate new products and services in the information or technology sector. Become the next Steve Jobs in your particular niche. Work hard and deliver good service. Market your better mouse trap aggressively so the world knows about it and can buy it (you were wondering when I was going to mention the word “marketing,” weren’t you?) I think if we all do that, Cleveland, and the whole U.S., can get things going again and get back to the financial prosperity and vibrancy that we all desire. Visit Our Web Site and Blogs CommonSenseGovernment.com Common Sense Government Blog for John Eberhard’s newest articles Common Sense Government Views Blog for articles by John and two other conservative authors Please visit CommonSenseGovernment.com for more of our older articles, plus a resource center with conservative books, news, web sites, and more.

Common Sense Government.com | 13509 Simshaw Ave. | Los Angeles, CA 91342

CommonSenseGovernment.com Home | Articles | Resource Center | Newsletter | About Us | Contact Us

Copyright © 2011 CommonSenseGovernment.com. All Rights Reserved.

By John Eberhard

Recently I saw an article on Newsmax.com about the fact that James Carville, a Democratic political strategist who worked for Clinton and who has written at least one book on politics, was advising President Obama to “panic.”

Carville stated “We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It’s pretty damn clear they are not happy campers.

“This is what I would say to President Barack Obama: The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.”

And then, Carville offers advice to the president in a CNN column. Step 1: “Fire somebody. No — fire a lot of people.”

I thought about this and decided this was actually pretty savvy political advice. If Obama were to fire Timothy Geitner and all his other top financial advisors right now, admit he screwed up, and change course, he could buy himself another year of broader public support, and maybe even get re-elected.

But I am sure he is quite incapable of that, because results are not what motivates him. Prior to being elected President, Obama has never worked at a job where he had to produce a measurable result. He has never been the CEO of a company, or the Mayor of a city, or Governor of a state, or even a sales manager.

He was a college professor, a community organizer, a state senator, a U.S. Senator, and then President. And often in his positions as state senator and U.S. Senator, he voted “present,” rather than commit himself.

I don’t think results even occur to President Obama. He never had to make sure a company was profitable. He never had to make sure the company made payroll. He never had to balance a budget for a city or a state. So results don’t even enter his equations. (And that’s I think one of the generalized problems with liberals of even politicians in general, that they don’t look at results to measure their actions.)

Obama probably looks at the situation now and thinks he’s done a pretty good job. Because he is a total ideologue. His measure of success is how much liberal/socialist policies he has been able to put into effect. And by that measure, he’s done pretty well, because he has rammed more socialist policies and actions down our throats than anyone since FDR.

Obama talks a lot about jobs. But since he doesn’t understand how jobs are created, or what really motivates employers to hire people, or how many of his actions have actually and totally discouraged businesses from hiring people, he thinks he can just talk about jobs or sort of “order” businesses to hire people and they will.

So the fact that the economy has been in a funk for 3 years doesn’t phase Obama. And the fact that unemployment has been over 9% for some time now, I don’t think those facts even register. Since his thinking follows the Marxist line of thought that businessmen and entrepreneurs are the bad guys (and he regularly demonizes business) he probably thinks they are not hiring because they’re just bad people and not appreciative of all the fine speeches he has made on the subject of jobs. (And yes I did says “Marxist” and for the uninitiated, that means “socialism” and if you don’t think what he’s doing is socialist, you need to read “The Communist Manifesto.”)

Obama is one of those guys who’s been mad for 35 years that more liberal/socialist stuff hasn’t been implemented and figures now is his chance to be the liberal hero.

But some other liberals are starting to realize that results DO matter, at least to the public, and so they are starting to seriously distance themselves from him.

Despite the fact that some liberals are beginning to realize that the state of the economy does matter for some reason to those dolts out in middle America, Obama isn’t one of them. He won’t be changing course, because he thinks he’s doing fine. And November, 2012 will be an evil surprise for him.

Socialist balloney