Top JPMorgan bankers hosting Romney fund-raiser says the headline.  The article goes on to imply there might be influence peddling on the menu of the fundraising dinner.  Amazing that during the 2008 Obama campaign it was rarely, if ever, reported that Barack Obama received many times the amount of Wall Street/Banker donations to his campaign than McCain did.

Does this duplicity bother me?  Only in that it is not done honestly.  They choose what they will report or not report, how they will report it or not, all under the guise of objective reporting.  If Journalist were hones about there allegiance or biases then report however they wish. 

Currently Wall Street and Bankers have been getting a bad rap in the press so mentioning both a wall street firm and the term banker in the headline automatically puts Candidate Rominey's fundraising unfairly in question to many readers.  All I ask is that journalist and editors be honest or be fair in their rep

Ndamukong Suh suspended...?  Just in case you do not know who Suh is, he is the Detroit Lions Defensive leader who deliberately stomped on a Green Bay Packer while on the he was on the ground after Suh had tackled him.  Suh was suspended for two games without pay and maybe fined another $50,000.00.  Since moving to North Carolina my football allegiances have been the Carolina Panthers, then the Detroit LIons, then everyone else.  As a fan of the Lions I am not just dissappointed in Suh's brutality, I am outraged that the Lions themselves did not discipline Suh.  Unpaid suspension for the whole season or firing Suh would have been more appropriate.  But football is a brutal sport, you say, so whats the problem?  Yes football is a brutal sport but it also has its rules within which physical play is governed.  People often want to claim that things should be fair, yet if it will get your team ahead, or improve your situation to cheat, or break the rules then we are supposed to overlook the rules or the violation of them.  The actions of Suh shows that not only does he not accept the restrictions of rules, but shows that as a man he has a lack of control over his emotions and an extreme lack of character.  But worse it shows that the Lions organization is no different than Suh.

If this kind of behavior was just limited to a few unruly athletes maybe it could be overlooked but this attitude of lawlessness is becoming mor pervasive in much of society as well.  For example we are not to call foreigners, who enter our country with out following our legal procedures to do so, illegal aliens.  But if they have broken our laws to come into our country they have come here illegally therefore, they are illegal aliens.  But we are asked ot overlook the abuse of our laws and welcome them. 

Suh would have been arrested if he had stomped on someone on the street, but in a game we are asked to suspend judgement.  I for one feel he should have been fired.

It has become popular for those who wish to raise taxes on the wealthy (thus punishing achievement) to point to the inequality in income between different groups of Americans.  Liberals, Socialists, and Marxists interpret the right to "the pursuit of happiness" as a right to equality of outcome.  Therefore Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, and Marxists belive in redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have not. In light of this desire to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who have earned less the following quote found in the Huffington Post is of interest.

"24/7 Wall St. examined government spending by state in a number of categories to identify those that  give the most and least in money and benefits to their residents. Our analysis has found that states that provide the most services and benefits have high income inequality. In order to finance these programs, the states that offer the most to their residents also have among the highest tax burdens in the country."

Interesting that the states that redistribute the most wealth have the most inequality in income. The states which redistribute the least wealth also have the narrowest inequality in income.

"Income inequality measures how evenly wealth is distributed among residents of an area. Income inequality is high when a few people make a great deal and many make far less. Six of the ten states that are most generous are in the top 15 states for highest rates of income inequality. The three states with the greatest inequality in the country — New York, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts —  are among the most generous. Many of the states giving the least, such as Idaho and Indiana, fall on the other end of the spectrum for  income inequality.


But the question must be asked how does the money get redistributed?  That seems to be the main function of the Federal Income Tax, after all when the income tax was instituted they could have gone with a federal sales tax. Both required a constitutional ammendment so why do income instead of sales?  With an sales tax the individual has the option to pay the tax or not, depending on whether or not they purchase a particular item that is taxed or not.  However, with the income tax the federal government has control of whether or not the tax is paid, and by deterimining the tax rates and deductions they can use the tax code to redistribute wealth.  Again 24/7 Wall Street shows this...

"The Tax Foundation calculates each state's tax burden by taking the total amount paid by the state's residents in taxes, and dividing it by the total income of the state's residents. Eight of the ten states that are most generous (in redistributing the wealth)
are among the top fifteen states with the highest tax burdens. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are all included on the list and also fill the top three slots for largest tax burdens in the country."

Could it be that using the tax code to redistribute wealth actually increases this inequality in income, or wealth?  After all most wealthy do not actually get their compensation though just income as some one who earns a paycheck does.  Compensation can take many forms, such as stock options, dividends, profit from sales, etc.  Could it be that punitive tax rates on the highest income earners just encourage them to change their method of compensation?  A quick review of recent tax inreases show that when tax rates go up revenue to the government decreases and conversly when tax rates decrease revenue rises.

I would suggest that redistribution of wealth via the federal tax code is detrimental both to government revenues and to the citizens it is intended to help.  I would propose that our current tax system needs to be drastically reformed to a flat tax system, or replaced in favor of the Fair Tax, a national consumption, sales, tax.

Redistributionist claim fairness in their use of the tax code to redistribute wealth, but if the tax code were truly fair all income earners would pay the same tax rate regardless of income.  That would truly match the definition of fairness.  Redistributionist claim that the wealthy should pay higher tax rates because that would be fair.  To make this true you have to believe that someone earning more than another person is an injustice.  When a person accepts a job at a certain rate of pay they have negotiated a contract. If a different person contracts for a different rate for a similar job that is their contract. Both have been fairly contracted, therefore, fair. No injustice has occured.

In the cause of Liberty I would promote the Fair Tax, a national consumption tax.  This allows the individual to control their tax amount they must pay the federal government.  The authors of our constitution and founders of our country intended for Americans to have the EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY not the Equality of Outcome.  Fairness as definned by Redistributionist and their concepts of Social Justice was not a part of our founding and can not be a fundamental foundation of Liberty.

Redistribution of Wealth, or Liberty and Equality of Opportunity?  I choose Liberty and Equality of Opportunity.


All Quotes from 24/7 Wall Street as published by Huffington Post 11/11/11

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.

Today is Veterans day, 11/11/11.  It is a day we honor the men and women who protect our constitutional representative democracy, freedom, and liberty.  I salute each and every military personnel who is serving, and all who have served in the cause of freedom.

This is also a day we honor our heros, specifically those heros who have served in the military.  I want to honor a man who is a hero of mine and his entire generation.  This generation is often known as the Greatest Generation.  They are the men and women who grew up during the Great Depression, saw Hitler walk all over Europe and besiege England, experienced the deadly attack on Pearl Harbor which brought the United States into WW2, and after defeating the axis powers began to rebuild Europe, Japan, and believed we could put a man on the moon. 

My hero is my father, Corporal Kenneth Raymond Gillett, C-company, Recon, 661st Tank Destroyer Battallion.  As is typical of many of our WW2 Vets my dad did not talk much about the war...he talked a lot about some of his friends and their antics and exploits during boot camp and while in active duty in France and Germany, but never about the war and it's skirmishes, battles, etc.  Until near the end of my dad's life I never knew that his unit was part of the last couple of weeks of the Battle of the Bulge and that they marched across France to the Rhine and into Germany engaging the Germans in several skirmishes and minor battles that helped keep the Germans into retreat that lead to its eventual surrender.

My father and those of his generation that I knew did not whine and complain about how unfortunate their circumstances were during the Depression and what the government or banks should be doing for them.  They did not expect the government to confiscate the wealth of those better off than they were and redistribute it.  They went found whatever work they could find, grew much of what they ate, loved God and their country.  When they were needed to defeat evil in Europe and the Pacific they volunteered, or when drafted they served.  They stormed Normandy on D-Day knowing that many of them would not live through the day. They planted a flag atop Iwo Jima having fought a bitter battle where many of their friends and buddies were wounded and died.

My dad and his generation did all of this because they believed in our constitutional republic.  They knew that freedom and liberty were not free.  They knew that liberty was something that required responsiblity, duty, and sacrifice.  They faced the enemy, they did not waver, they did not complain that the sacrifice was too great, they fought, they bleed, they died, and they were victorious.  The world was made a better place for their service and sacrifice. 

I honor them and am so proud to have been able to know so many of these men and women of the Greatest Generation.  And to my father I love you and to me you are the greatest of the Great Generation.  Dad I salute you!

On the way home today I was listening to a talk radio show, yes, talk radio, and the topic of discussion was the banks and fees, mortgages, foreclosures, etc.  One caller was trying to make the point that after all the "bailout" money the banks received the least they could do was lower the loans people owed down to the value the house is currently worth.  In doing so he mentioned someone he personally knew who had tried to short sale their home and the bank refused the deal and then foreclosed on them.  He felt this was unfair of the banks and went on to mention that this person was now living with a friend, needed a car and could not get a loan, nor could they rent an apartment because of the foreclosure on their credit.  He went on to note that this person attended the church in which he attends.  The caller ended with the assertion that the government should be helping people like his friend, or at least forcing the banks to do so.


I had several problems sith the basic bent to the shows topic and to this callers point of view. First I was bothered with the fact that both of the individuals in the story went to the same church, the story teller and the subject of the story, and that it never seemed to cross the callers mind that as a christian it was his and their churches responsibility to help out the individual who was struggling.  After all Jesus taught that Christians and the Church are to help the poor and feed the hungry.  Even more specifically they were to help and feed their fellow christians who were struggling.

Secondly, when you go to the bank and take out a loan and sign all those forms at the closing of a house you have made and agreement based on your word that you will repay that loan at the agreed upon interest rate.  It is called a contract.  It is not the governments place to force a bank to renegotiate a contract that the buyer has agreed to.  The fact that a bank could be forced to renegotiate is absurd.  Where would it end...I buy a new car for $25,000 and agree to pay the bank back this amount with interest.  Then I drive off the car lot and the car immediately loses 1/5th of its value so is now worth only $20,000, shoud the bank be forced to lower my loan $5,000.  It would not take to long and banks would quit making loans for automobiles and car sales would only be done by cash sales only.  It would devistate the auto industry and the economy.  Why would it not do the same if banks were forced to lower the $250,000 mortgage by $50,000 to $200,000 forcing the bank into a $50K loss.

Third, it reward irresponsibility (those who bought more house than they really could afford) and penalizes those who played by the rules and are paying off, or payed off their loans as agreed upon.

And lastly, it boils down to who's responsibility is it to handle these situations, is it the individual, the church, the community, or the government?  I believe the responsibility lies with the individual and if hardship truly does befall someone then their church and neighbors should be the ones to help, not the federal government.  Live will always throw a curve ball when you least expect it.  We need to plan for those times and live below our means so that we can save and be able to survive economic turmoil.  If you live paycheck to paycheck always in debt...then economic ups and downs will always elicit stress, worry, and panic.  Check out Dave Ramesy's book Financial Peace...it may help you move from financial turmoil to financial peace.

Should the citizens driving on the roads and highways obey the speed limit when the authorities entrusted with enforcing those speed limits are themselves speeding?

It is recorded in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created...."  Regardless of your ideas of how God created, the fact is that God Created.  Few people truly deny the existance of some kind of creator.  Many who subscribe to evolution, have decided that the building blocks of life, if not life itself, may have been seeded via comets and meteorites from space.  Many well respected scientists find it difficult to accept that the complexity of the universe, and especially of living organisms, could have happened with out some organizer, designer, or creator, whichever you call it.

Bottom line when you get right down to it all theory's of our existance, and the existance of the Universe, and all that it contains, is based on a set of assumptions that must be taken on faith.  Science must first observe, ask an informed question, based on those observations, and after investigating many options come up with a viable hypothesis (an answer to this question).  Then this hypothesis must be tested and the results verified by reproducing those results.  In all theory's of cosmology, or creation, neither can the beginings of the universe, or life, be observed, nor can they be tested and reproduced.  If it is possible to reproduce the beginnings of the universe, or life, then we would become the creator.  Once you get past the testable hypothesis the rest, which is based on speculation, conjecture, and assumptions, must be taken on faith. And faith is based on what one believes which is founded in the worldview one holds.

I chose to base my worldview on what is known as the Word of God, The Holy Bible.  From this I hold that there is a creator and that creator is the God proclaimed in the Bible.  The concept of worldviews will have to wait for another posting.