The Political “Football” of Social Security

April 30, 2016 Frank Kuchar

There are many things that I’ve come to find hard to believe, but I was squarely confronted with another one this past week when my wife and I attended a two evening seminar on filing for Social Security and Medicare benefits. I’m not supposed to be old enough to be concerned with this issue yet there I sat! However, I did learn just how convoluted this entire setup is and how it is not hard to believe how these programs will destroy our country if they are not addressed and dealt with. Discounting the fact for the moment that such systems are not within the purview of government and outside the its Constitutional authority, we are in too deep to terminate them cold turkey; but we as a country must understand the truth behind them and wean ourselves off of them over the next few generations.

There are several myths about social security that have become ingrained in our social conscious. First is the idea that it was designed to be a pension plan for retirement; that was the bogus lie used to “sell” the concept to the populace in 1937. Yet when the Supreme Court stuck the law down as unconstitutional, FDR’s attorneys argued that it was really just a general tax and so it was allowed to stand.

A second myth is that the monies contributed are “held” in a trust fund for us. There is no social security trust fund as the monies withheld from our paychecks and matched by our employers has gone into the general treasury and been spent.

A result of this first myth is the common attitude among retirees and those like myself who are closing in on that mile marker that those monies are “my money – I’m entitled to it because I paid into this plan.” Again, that is based upon the belief that Social Security was intended to be a pension plan, which behind the scenes it was not. Want proof? When the law went into effect, the average lifespan for the most Americans was 64 years of age; the retirement age to collect Social Security benefits – 65 years of age! The government was betting that for the most part, it would collect more in taxes than it would have to pay out because most would die before collecting their benefits! Such is the cynical tyranny of socialist governments.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2015 Social Security benefits amounted to 24% of the federal budget. Medicare, Medicaid and other similar insurance programs added another 25%. A grab bag of other safety net programs took up yet another 10%. The problem – these percentages are only growing exponentially at a rapidly increasing rate. Witness how the projected date by government economists as to when these systems will be “broke” is a target constantly being updated to a date closer and closer to our immediate future.

I hope that my health will permit me to work for many more years so that I will be able to forego my benefits and do a small part of saving the financial future of my children and grandchildren, but who knows what the future may hold? This one thing I do know will hold – these programs are not sustainable and our politicians must put our future ahead of their political futures by addressing this looming time bomb. John Taylor said it well in regards to pension and welfare programs which had already started in the early 1800s’:

“That the error of trusting republican governments with this tyrannical power [i.e., creating pension and welfare programs], has probably caused their premature deaths, because they are most likely to push it to excess” (Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, p. 341, published 1820).

-April 29, 2016

Declaration of Independence – Ignored Warnings

April 15, 2016 Frank Kuchar

All patriots are acquainted with the opening phrase of the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence. Yet I fear that too many have never taken the time to read and/or study the entire Declaration and the complaints lodged within it against the tyranny of King George III.

One thing I am certain of – those in our government most certainly are not familiar with it, for if they were, they would heed the warnings within it and change the way in which they are exercising similar tyranny over us today.

Consider these four complaints stated by Jefferson – complaints you will readily see should serve as a warning to those in our government today.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Does this not reflect the myriad of government agencies that have proliferated over the decades that are suffocating our freedom and liberties with endless regulations and oppressions? Think IRS, BLM and the EPA just to list a few.

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

Madison and others of our founders argued strenuously that the federal government’s powers were to be “few and defined”, whereas those left to the states would be “numerous and indefinite” (Federalist 45). Yet we see Congress, the executive branch with all its agencies, and the federal courts constantly and repeatedly overstepping their constitutional authority and subjecting the citizens of the several states to purported “laws” that are contrary to the constitutions adopted by the citizens of their respective states.

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

You can scarcely find a more obtrusive and anti-freedom tax system than what we currently suffer under. Yet when we petition our representatives for relief, they talk much but deliver only more oppression – or if nothing else, stand idly by while the IRS runs roughshod over us.

“We have warned them [those in the English government] from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

This statement, near the end of the Declaration, sums up the warning we are giving those in our government. There is a tsunami of anger and frustration rising up all across the land and for the same reasons as in the days of our forefathers. We all know how that matter was resolved:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute New Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Yes, those who govern us would do well to revisit our Declaration of Independence and give heed to the message and warnings it contains.

-April 15, 2016

What Happens If You Don’t…

April 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Pay your property taxes? Pay your income taxes? Comply with any EPA regulations regarding the use of your property? Comply with a multitude of local zoning ordinances or permits in regards to your property? We all know the answer to these questions as we’ve either experienced the consequences or know someone who has – the government, be it local, state and/or federal, swoops in and takes your property from you, fines you and perhaps even takes away your freedom by imprisoning you.

Does this sound like a government described by Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratification convention in 1788: “for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government”? My question hardly needs a response.

John Taylor, one of the most eloquent and ardent defenders among our founders of individual liberty and limited government, had this to say on the matter of property and individual rights:

“The restrictions as to taxing property, imposed upon both the federal and state governments, also recognize only a limited power over it in either; and as to the application of taxes, it is,…expressly limited to the execution of the powers delegated, for which purpose and no other the power of taxation was bestowed. Among the powers delegated, there is none to grant pensions, or to dispose of the public money according to the dictates of caprice, or benevolence,…

Societies are not instituted for the purpose of enabling governments to destroy natural rights; and as no man possesses a natural, or necessary, or convenient power over the natural rights of another, a majority of men cannot have a right to surrender to a government an absolute power over these natural rights…the freedom of conscience and of labour are essentially natural rights…Neither nature, nor necessity, nor convenience, has invested the people, or their representatives, with an absolute power over private property, or over conscience;…” (Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated, 1820, p. 276)

Let those words of wisdom from almost 200 years ago sink in. Have we not done what Taylor said we have no right to do, namely surrendered our natural rights to a capricious government? It is unfortunate that we cannot require all of these young people thronging to Bernie Sanders rallies to read Taylor’s writings before being allowed to vote. Matter of fact, maybe it would help if all Americans were to read the wisdom of our founders before they cast their votes; maybe then we could elect men and women who would see to it that our government met Patrick Henry’s stated purpose of government.

-April 8, 2016

Tax Reform – “Fair” versus “Just”

March 18, 2016 Frank Kuchar

A few nights ago I listened to pundits debating the tax proposals of some of the presidential candidates as to which was better. The word “fair” was repeatedly used in the discussion. In another interview, Ben and Jerry of ice cream fame (who support Senator Sanders) were asked if they thought his proposal of a 92% marginal tax rate was “fair”, to which they replied “yes”. The interviewer pressed them on this and inquired if they would accept such a high tax on themselves given the level of their incomes, and they replied “yes” again, as it would be fair to those who earned less for the rich to “pay their fair share” (I guess it never occurred to them that they could voluntarily pay that tax now without an oppressive governmental confiscatory policy).

But is a tax system supposed to be “fair”? What is “fair”? That is an elusive definition as it depends upon what part of the income spectrum you fall. Sure, some rich individuals like these two may mouth support for such rates, but their refusal to voluntarily pay those kind of taxes highlights their hypocrisy.

I would argue that a tax system should be “just” and not “fair.” You may consider the terms synonymous, and indeed we use them in our regular course of conversation as such. However, they are not the same. The concept of “fair” is really a perception based upon the subjectivity of those impacted by a given situation, such as two siblings arguing over whether or not at Christmas time they were both treated “fairly” in the gifts they received.

“Just”, on the other hand, is a determination based upon an objective source such as law. We go to court when we feel we have not been treated “fairly” in order to seek “justice.” Our founders did not seek to establish a government that would be “fair”, but rather one that would be “just.” James Madison wrote in The Federalist Number 51:

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”

Thus, according to Madison a tax system must be one that would comport itself to the concept of “justice.” So what would make for a “just” tax system? I submit that any tax on income of any kind is not a “just” system. In his Second Treatise of Government John Locke wrote

“every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself..labour being he unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to…”

To this Thomas Jefferson added in his first inaugural address:

“a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,…”

It can be safely stated that any kind of an income tax system violates the statements made by these three great champions of personal liberty. Instead of arguing over this nebulous concept of a “fair” tax system, candidates should be setting forth their plans for a “just” tax system – which by the way has languished in Congress without a vote for two decades. This proposal involves the elimination of all income and payroll taxes and replaces it with a national consumption tax. Unfortunately it is commonly referred to as “The Fair Tax”, but it is a more “Just Tax” system. I want to be treated “justly”, for then I can say without equivocation that I have been also treated “fairly.”

-March 18, 2016

A Contrast of Pledges

March 11, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence it begins by unrolling a reference to human history as the canvass upon which the rest of the document will be painted. In the second paragraph it pivots to the principles that transcend human history as the bold brush with which what follows is to be painted and ends with a noble attestation.

Those who know anything of it usually can only recite some of the first sentence of that second paragraph and that closing phrase, but are totally unacquainted with the bulk of what comes in-between. Jefferson used a broad brush stroke to paint the background for the complaints of the colonies by painting the scene of government’s purpose and its relation to its citizens before returning to history to, with pinpoint strokes, sketch out the specifics of where the British government had failed in matching up to its obligatory “colors.”

Time and again he lays out the charge of the King’s (and Parliament’s) refusal to give heed to the concerns and welfare of the colonists. He enunciates this failure with one specific example after another and ties them back to their being a violation of the principles set forth in that second paragraph. If you take a few minutes to read them you can sense that many of these abuses could well be lodged against those who govern us in Washington, as well as in our state capitals and city halls.

However, a glaring contrast between now and then comes at the very end. After starting out with a reference to history, setting the foundation of unassailable principles, spelling out the particulars springing forth from them, Jefferson returns to the higher level of appealing to Him from whom the principles he enunciated spring from and closing with the noblest of pledges:

“we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Today, however, we hear quibbling over whether or not a candidate pledges to support his opponent who defeats him in a primary. Candidates are expected to pledge allegiance to their party’s “platform”, while their big money donors expect them to also pledge to do their bidding once the candidate is elected. Lost in all of this is the idea of pledging lives, fortunes and sacred honor. An elected official is to serve, i.e., to devote a limited portion of their lives in serving the lives of his/her fellow citizens; yet all too often they end up serving their own welfare. Instead of expending their fortunes, they enrich their fortunes by manipulating their positions of power to extract riches from others they hold at ransom under threat of legislating oppressive government legislation and/or regulation. And finally, we seldom see among them any semblance of honor.

In my first run for Congress, I came home after midnight one evening and couldn’t go to sleep. I’d re-read the Declaration the day before and suddenly a modern version of it started coming to me, so I got up and hurriedly wrote the following Declaration that you can access here below. I hope you find it encouraging.

Declaration of Reclamation

-March 11, 2016

Why the Electoral College – Part IV

March 4, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Having covered the historical background of what we commonly refer to as the “electoral college,” the question now is “What advantages does it have over the approach of electing the president and vice-president by direct popular vote?”

As I explained in Parts I and II, the elector approach serves to protect the foundation principles of our system of government, namely republicanism and federalism.

Second, pure democracy will ultimately result in the oppression of minority interests by the majority. The electoral college is designed to protect the interests of those in the minority and in fact, to enhance their interests.

Third, it helps contribute to the political stability of the nation by encouraging the existence of multiple political parties – or at least to preserve a two-party system at a minimum.

Fourth, it helps maintain the unity of the nation because it requires a distribution of the popular support across the country. This means that a candidate for the office of president must compete for the votes of all of the citizenry across the nation.

Without these last two mechanisms in place the election of the president and vice-president would come to be dominated by the larger population centers or regions, thus ignoring huge swaths of the country. A direct corollary to this would be the eventual disappearance of political parties and a real choice of candidates from which the citizens could choose. In the scenario where the president would be elected by direct popular vote, one party would gain the pre-eminence in those heavily populated areas and thus become the victor in every election.

An analysis conducted by the Washington Post following the 2008 election demonstrated that were we to change to electing the president by direct popular vote, the Democrat party would be that dominate party since the densely populated cities and their surrounding areas are in the Democrat camp. Furthermore, most of the country and citizens in-between the two coasts, with the exception of a few major cities, would be ignored because they would not be a factor in the outcome of the election.

In the final analysis, to abolish the current system and replace it with a direct popular election would forever change our entire system of government. We would very quickly coalesce into a true “national” government, further reducing the existence of the states to a level of irrelevance. In a word, we would cease to be a federal republic (I know, in many respects we’ve already ceased to be one). This was a major fear of many of our founders when the Constitution was proposed and why they gave us this ingenious system we call “the electoral college.” I hope then that these four essays will help you understand why we must keep it intact and give you the information to better educate those you meet who think our system needs to be cast aside.

-March 4, 2016

Why the Electoral College – Part III

February 26, 2016 Frank Kuchar

As I outlined in Part II of this series, the electoral college was an ingenious compromise designed to preserve both the concepts of federalism and republicanism in the selection process for our president and vice-president. The intent was also to avoid the polarization by political parties by having non-committed electors select the best qualified individuals for these two offices. Unfortunately, this ideal only lasted for the first few election cycles.

It didn’t take long before political parties arose, and with them the bitter factionalism they tend to produce. This became evident in the election of 1800 in which the incumbent, John Adams (representing the Federalist Party) was opposed and defeated by Thomas Jefferson (representing the Democratic-Republican Party). The Federalists favored a strong central government whereas the Democratic-Republican Party favored a smaller, limited central government with the states holding most of the governmental power (sound familiar?).

By 1836 the two party system was well-established and several trends towards the system we see today had begun to emerge. One was the popular selection of the electors by all states (with the exception of South Carolina). With the move to state-wide popular vote for the electors came the “winner-take-all” approach to awarding all of the state’s electors to the candidate who won the popular vote. In 1831 the first truly “third party”, the Anti-Masonic Party, held the first presidential nominating convention in Baltimore where they selected not only their candidate for president, but also his “running mate” for the office of vice-president. The other major parties eventually followed suit, and from there it evolved to where the electors became tied to the candidates of their parties. This became more ingrained over the years until we finally ended up with our current method in the electoral selection process.

The uproar we’ve heard over the past couple of elections regarding one candidate winning the popular vote and losing the presidency in the electoral college is nothing new. There have been three instances in our history in which this has happened. In 1876 Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Republican Rutherford Hayes. In 1888, again the Democrat candidate, Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote yet lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison in the electoral college. Then in 2000 Democrat Al Gore lost the presidency to Republican George W. Bush in the electoral vote despite having a narrow margin in the popular vote. There have been other instances in which the winner in both categories had a narrow majority in the popular vote but a significant margin in the electoral college.

So, controversy over our process is nothing new. Next week we’ll examine the advantages of the electoral college system over that of direct popular vote.

-February 26, 2016

Why the Electoral College – Part II

February 19, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In Part I of this series I pointed out that although some of the founders felt the people could be trusted in the direct election of the executive officers, most did not. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, many ideas were floated as to how to effect their election.

One suggestion was to have the Congress select the president and vice-president. This was dismissed on the grounds that it would make the president beholden to the legislature for his appointment and thereby failed the principle of “separation of powers.”

Another suggestion was to have the executives of the states select the president. It was argued that they would be more acquainted with the traits a “chief executive” would need as they themselves functioned to a lesser degree in that same capacity. This was rejected as it failed the test of “republicanism” – i.e., the people would be too far removed from the process.

The final compromise that we find in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution was to have the state legislatures select “electors” from among their citizens who would in turn vote for the president and vice-president. It was left up to the states to determine the method by which their electors would be chosen, including allowing the people to select them by popular vote (which five states – New Hampshire, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania – did in the very first election in which George Washington was chosen President).

This compromise preserved both the concepts of “federalism” (the states choosing the electors) and “republicanism” (the people either voting for the electors directly or having their elected state representatives appoint the electors). By moving the people one step from the selection process it helped alleviate the fear of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, which he had expressed during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 that “The people…would be misled by a few designing men.”

These electors were not like those appointed to this task today. They were individuals chosen based upon their maturity and wisdom in the affairs of the nation who would be of a character whose interest was what was best for the country. They were to be individuals who would have the ability to vet those whom they felt were noble candidates for these offices and select the one they felt was best qualified.

Consequently these electors were not part of a political party’s “slate of electors”, nor were they “pledged” to a particular candidate as they are today. They were to be completely independent and thus able to make a choice based upon the qualifications of those considered for the executive offices.

In Part III I’ll examine how we went from this ideal to what we have today.

Why the Electoral College – Part I

February 12, 2016February 12, 2016 Frank Kuchar

(I have been asked about the movement in some states for a direct election of the office of president and vice-president instead of through the electoral college. This is part I of a four part series I published in 2012 explaining why we do not elect those offices by direct election, how the system is supposed to work and how it has changed.)

Every presidential election we hear the question raised as to why we have such a strange way of selecting our president and vice-president. Many ask why we can’t just elect them via direct popular vote as we do our other elected officials, since that would be more “democratic.” Such a move to change our process to a national popular vote demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the kind of government we are supposed to be and the history behind the establishment of our Constitution. Because of this dearth of understanding among so many of our fellow citizens, it will take more than just one article for me to offer a defense of our electoral system.

The most glaring misunderstanding of our election system is demonstrated when people allege that it is not “democratic.” We are not a democracy, and those who talk about democracy fail to have an adequate understanding of it. Our founders did not establish a democracy – they gave us, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, a republic. The uniting of the concept of republicanism and federalism formed the unique basis for the new government established by the Constitution. It is this basis that lies at the heart of our unique method of electing the top officials in the executive branch.

There were a number of alternatives proposed during the debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as to the best method to select a president and vice-president. There were some who did favor direct election by the people as they placed a great amount of faith in the people being astute enough to vet those for whom they would cast their vote. There were others, however, who held just the opposite view. In his notes on the debates, James Madison recorded that Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, made this observation regarding the ability of the people to make such a judgment: “He was against a popular election. The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” Of those who held these two opposing views, I think we can safely say that Mr. Gerry got it right.

Consider the ignorance of so many voters as evidenced in many of the “man on the street” interviews on the internet and television and we can see how our current process is abysmal. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” Next week I’ll turn to the reason why our system is grounded in the concepts of republicanism and federalism.

-February 12, 2016

Why the 9th Amendment?

February 5, 2016February 5, 2016 Frank Kuchar

When you read the ninth and tenth amendments, at first blush the ninth seems to be irrelevant because the same point appears to be repeated in the ending of the tenth. However, upon closer examination, the ninth is as important, if not more so, than the tenth.

These two amendments read, in order:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

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

To understand why the ninth was inserted we need to return to the debate over whether or not a bill of rights was necessary. Alexander Hamilton argued against the wisdom of having a bill of rights in Federalist 84:

“It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.”

As you can see, Hamilton’s argument is one of exclusion or silence. To state that the government cannot do something implies that without that prohibition it would be authorized or empowered to do so. But, if there is no prohibition stated, it is understood that no authority or power in that area exists to begin with. However, the Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution unless there was a guarantee that a bill of rights would be added to the newly minted constitution upon the convening of the first congress, and so in that first congress James Madison pressed the Federalists who controlled it to follow through on that guarantee and send to the states for ratification what we now know as our Bill of Rights.

This brings us to the language of the amendment in question. The ninth amendment addresses “rights”, whereas the tenth deals with the delegation of “powers” – two very different concepts. The purpose of the ninth amendment is to shore up what Hamilton warned of in his Federalist essay, namely that just because not every right was specifically enumerated within the Constitution, it did not mean that the people had forfeited them to the control of the central government. It is a “catch-all” amendment prohibiting the general government from assuming control over rights which the people had never intended to delegate to it.

Since the ninth amendment addresses “rights” over which no man or entity has the leeway to usurp, it is even more critical than the tenth. We hear much trumpeting of the tenth amendment today, and rightfully so, but it is imperative that we also understand the even greater significance of the ninth and that we, the people, reassert our claim to it in the face of a government which violates it at every turn.

-February 5, 2016