America in a Box

Beauty in art, beauty in culture; one is wide open and free, the other is perhaps bounded by fairly rigid rules.

America's norms, created by tradition, formalized by law and policy, America is the land of the carefully constrained.  Citizens are expected to color inside the lines.  True?  Ask the occupiers how the police treated them.

... a game in a box.
A short list of places to stand.
Those are the rules.

Change 'in favor of all' is often resisted by power players in favor of their own interests.

Today's America  seems constrained by monied interests purchasing government backing and by government playing along with such special interests.  Our financial industry now touches virtually everyone in the the world, and as yet does so without  accountability.  The six billion or so who bear the burden of being so manhandled didn't give their permission, but Wall Street now controls the world price of corn, the staple for many of them, along with most other commodities.  Monsanto dictates their crops.  The U.S. Congress backs it all.

Here at home, debate is limited to the confines of left or right.  Nothing outside the box.  The public forum tolerates the narrow debate of liberal and conservative issues, but the resulting polarization cripples our progress.  Pro-life folks find themselves faced with a candidate who thinks the poor are lazy welfare-ites.  Pro-choice folks have to vote for a big-government/big-debt fellow.  Voting for the more 'Christian' candidates in Congress means backing big business, especially Wall Street, to the detriment of the nations poor and the developing world.  The media play along.  We're boxed, and without a venue for a real public forum.

Americans and the world are scrambling for an exit strategy.  'Occupy' has dozens of focal points and now spans the developed world.  'Green' is tackling resource issues.  'Revival' is in the wings in a brand new form.  'Globalization' is rewriting policy, trade, and finance. Worldwide protest in 436 cities targets Monsanto and GMOs (just 17 hours ago), and Ag-Gag is tackling farm animal abuse.  ....

The next decades will be a blast.  Only figuratively, we hope.

You've noticed.  Picked a path yet for your part in it all?

The Ninety and Nine

This poem from 1931 shows a bit of the history of the issue in America.  Now with globalization, the question remains but on a much larger scale.  Rich and poor, white collar and blue collar, haves and have nots ...

by
Rose Elizabeth Smith

There are ninety and nine that work and die,
In hunger and want and cold,
That one may revel in luxury,
And be lapped in the silken fold;
And ninety and nine in the hovels bare,
And one in a palace of riches rare.
From the sweat of their brow the desert blooms
And the forest before them falls;
Their labor has builded humble homes,
And the cities with lofty halls;
And the one owns the cities and houses and lands,
And the ninety and nine have empty hands.
But the night so dreary and dark and long
At last shall the morning bring;
And over the land the victor’s song
Of the ninety and nine shall ring,
And echo afar, from zone to zone:
“Rejoice, for labor shall have its own.”

From the
Machinist Monthly Journal
November 1931

In the developing world, it's common for folks to work harder, longer, and with less reward than we do. It's common to launch several 'small business' efforts in a year, hoping for something that works. Urban unemployment above 50% is typical as is rural unemployment around 80%. The common lament isn't "I'm poor," it's "I have no voice, I can't change anything, I can't even help my own children."

The rich in the developing world have everything they need, of course.

If all the world were like us ... would that solve the problem? What are the pieces that matter?

The Emperor's Toilet

Wealth that could be used for the benefit of many is spent gilding the emperor's toilet.  Why is that? 

Interestingly, Western nations see themselves as bastions of justice, of progress, of equality, liberty and brotherhood.  They believe themselves to be noble and above the injustice of discrimination against a lineage or class or race.

Recent years, however, have unveiled governments whose policies are purchased by the rich and whose initiatives are chosen for political advantage rather than the good of the citizens.

Today's government in action bears little resemblance to the original.  Folks are distrustful, and the nation's international reputation has declined sharply in the last twenty-five years.  There are reasonable alternatives, are there not?

Soweto children's Gospel Choir

And how about the church; is the church infected by our bent culture?  Is there a gracious path outward for a genuine Christian heart?  Yes, and yes.

The exodus is already underway, you've probably noticed.  The next generation is neither willing nor able to be 'building and meeting' conformists.  We perhaps would be well advised to listen to the emerging youth who've legitimately encountered God.  They're what's in the queue for the church and perhaps for Godly purpose as well.

Nigerian youth in worship

From a culture that generates a widening gap between the rich and poor, from a worldview that seeks profit rather than good, from a culture whose claim to noble purpose is in their history and not their actions, the exodus is begun.  How might we be part of the change and not be left behind among the rubble?

So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?""No," said Ford..., "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur..., "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

• Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish (1984) Ch. 36.

Adams?  No, the other Adams!

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."

• John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814).

Democracy or a Republic

Democracy or Republic?

The Founding Fathers Intended for the United States to Be a Republic

JUNE 01, 2007 by WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Walter Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University.

How often do we hear the claim that our nation is a democracy? Was a democratic form of government the vision of the Founders? As it turns out, the word democracy appears nowhere in the two most fundamental founding documents of our nation—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, declares “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Our pledge of allegiance to the flag says not to “the democracy for which it stands,” but to “the republic for which it stands.” Is the song that emerged during the War of 1861 “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

So what is the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is envisioned as a protector of rights.

In recognition that it is government that poses the gravest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases in reference to Congress throughout the first ten amendments to the Constitution, such as shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. According to Webster’s dictionary, a democracy is defined as “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” In a democracy the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike the rights envisioned under a republican form of government, rights in a democracy are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

There is considerable evidence that demonstrates the disdain held by our founders for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Later on, Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” In a word or two, the Founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with anti-majority-rule, undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for frequent criticism and calls for elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states could not use their majority to run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or two-thirds of state legislatures, to propose an amendment and three-fourths of state legislatures to ratify it. Part of the reason for having a bicameral Congress is that it places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of all 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president’s veto.

There is even a simpler way to expose the tyranny of majority rule. Ask yourself how many of your day-to-day choices would you like to have settled through the democratic process of majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Would like your choice of where to live, what clothes to purchase, what foods you eat, or what entertainment you enjoy to be decided through a democratic process? I am sure that at the mere suggestion that these choices should be subject to a democratic vote, most of us would deem it a tyrannical attack on our liberties.

Most Americans see our liberties as protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, but that vision was not fully shared by its framers. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued, “[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?” James Madison agreed: “This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system . . . [because] by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure.”

Madison thought this danger could be guarded against by the Ninth Amendment, which declares “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Of course, the Ninth Amendment has little or no meaning in today’s courts.

Transformed into a Democracy?

Do today’s Americans have contempt for the republican values laid out by our Founders, or is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? It appears that most Americans, as well as their political leaders, believe that Congress should do anything it can muster a majority vote to do. Thus we have been transformed into a democracy. The most dangerous and insidious effect of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy, decency, and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.

If we have become a democracy, I guarantee you that the Founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. They intended, and laid out the ground rules for, a limited republican form of government that saw the protections of personal liberties as its primary function.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/democracy-or-republic#ixzz2V0hFTbhc

Freedom; denied.

"I did not mislead Congress or the American people." Stephen Miller, IRS director.

Abuse usually has a history.  By the time such actions are public, there's often a trail of abuse.  The IRS has such a history.

This week's scandal, "'The inappropriate and intimidating investigation tactics included probing questions about organizations’ board members, officers, employees, and their families.  There were also demands for extraordinary detail on employee training, vending, and advertising.  Among other IRS demands, they required lists of “all issues important to your organization" with requests to "indicate your position regarding each issue.”  Tea Party organizations reported requests for complete lists of all the books their staffs had read in the prior 12 months with book reports on each.'"  ~From the office of congressman Jim Bridenstine

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s cross-hairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS which unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further inquiry by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

Early admissions by the IRS this time around suggest perhaps 75 such inappropriate events.  Subsequent claims suggest more than 500 specifically targeted and harassed organizations.  The IRS levied impossible and inappropriate reporting requirements, and withheld approval for years without legal reason or recourse.  IRS tactics included audits that lasted as much as 20 months with the associated legal and administrative burden.

The IRS has been the attack dog for various political interests since the 60's.  Nixon's impeachment documented such abuses.  NAACP officials claim the IRS unfairly targeted the group for an audit in the 2004 election cycle to discourage political activity. In the 1990s, conservative non-profits alleged similar targeting by the Clinton Administration.  This time, conservative organizations were the target during the run-up to the 2012 election cycle.

The IRS is not the problem.  The IRS, however criminal their behavior, is a tool.  The IRS has neither virtue nor nobility, neither commitment to serve nor the power to try.  It's a mechanical process; an adding machine.  Put things in, crunch, shovel results out.  There are fine folks who work for the IRS; we've actually met a few along the way.  The agency itself is just a tool with a soiled history. 

To keep things in perspective, left and right or liberal and conservative viewpoints are not in question here.  The author and this article do not endorse either stance and certainly not any of the parties involved.  The IRS has been illegally used by power players from across the spectrum.

UPDATE:  Even as the president was assuring the American people, more revelations were coming out about the extent of the targeting of organizations that could be broadly categorized as opposing the Obama agenda. Among the organizations the IRS investigated and audited were the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and the 180-year-old Baptist newspaper the Biblical Recorder, published by the North Carolina Baptist State Convention. The IRS reportedly also targeted the humanitarian relief group Samaritan's Purse. Both it and the BGEA are run by Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelical preacher Billy Graham.

In the run-up to last year's presidential election, the BGEA took out ads in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers encouraging Christians to vote in line with biblical values. Shortly after the ads were published, both the BGEA and Samaritan's Purse were notified that they were being audited by the IRS.

Mark DeMoss, a spokesman for the BGEA, says it is the first time the ministry had been audited in its then 62-year history. “These certainly appear to be politically motivated since the ministry had run some newspaper ads — not mentioning any candidates — simply urging people to vote for candidates with biblical values,” DeMoss said.

The Baptist Biblical Recorder appears to have been targeted because of a now-famous interview it ran with with the Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy in which Cathy boldly spoke out in favor of traditional marriage and families.

Shortly after the interview was published, the paper's editor, Allan Blume, began getting phone calls from the IRS. He reported that the calls definitely “raised some red flags and made me wonder why we were being targeted for an audit when we have been around since 1833 and have never been audited before. Putting it all together made me wonder.”

Blume said the timing of the investigation, right after the Cathy interview as well as the paper's running of the BGEA ads, appeared to be more than just coincidence. “There seems to be a very anti-Christian bias that has flowed into a lot of government agencies,” which he described as, “oppression literally against Christian organizations and groups. It makes you wonder what's going on.”

He added that while the paper was eventually given a clean bill by the IRS, the whole investigation represented “a lot of time and energy that we didn't have. It took some of our staff literally several weeks of doing nothing but that [audit].”

Similarly, both the BGEA and Samaritan's Purse were cleared by the tax bureaucracy, but, as Franklin Graham pointedly explained in a letter to President Obama, the cost was great to both organizations. “Unfortunately, while these audits not only wasted taxpayer money, they wasted money contributed by donors for ministry purposes,” wrote Graham, “as we had to spend precious resources servicing the IRS agents in our offices.”

According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, senior IRS officials in Washington knew about the bullying of conservative-leaning organizations as early as the summer of 2011. This was roughly nine months before the IRS commissioner testified before a House subcommittee in March 2012 and categorically denied that any improper targeting was taking place. He lied.  By then, it was rampant.

This week, we also learned that the IRS released some of these conservative groups’ confidential information to a news organization. That's a felony. Earlier this year, the EPA illegally released personal information on 80,000 farmers and ranchers, including 500 farms and ranches in South Dakota, to left-leaning environmental groups. Curious what's going on in your government?   Think our partisan/polarized Congress can bring the truth to light?

Steven T. Miller, acting director, had spent 25 years inside the IRS.  From IRS.gov:

As Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, Miller provides direction and oversight for all major decisions affecting the four taxpayer-focused IRS Divisions: Wage and Investment, Large Business and International, Small Business/Self-Employed, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities. He also provides the executive direction and leadership for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, which investigates income tax evasion and related financial crimes; the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility, which administers the laws and regulations governing the practice of tax professionals before the IRS; and the IRS Whistleblower Office, which receives information on tax cheating and provides appropriate rewards to whistleblowers.
Prior to his appointment as the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, Steve served as the Commissioner of the Large Business and International Division. In this position, he had oversight for federal tax administration for domestic and foreign corporations and partnerships with assets of $10 million or more that have a United States tax filing requirement. Previously, as the Commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Steve oversaw the administration of tax law relating to employee plans, tax-exempt organizations and various government entities. Steve also served as the Director of Exempt Organizations and as the acting Assistant Commissioner and Special Assistant to the Assistant Commissioner, Employee Plans/Exempt Organizations. Other prior service includes several years in Chief Counsel, serving as a Congressional staff member for the Joint Committee on Taxation and work in private practice.

What are the chances he wasn't fully aware of and complicit in what was going on?
 

A Living Wage

For a more detailed look, see the National Low Income Housing Coalition Report