Bring on 2018

It has been quite a year, this 2017!

Here in Houston we had a hurricane with an epic flood of 50+ inches of rain. That was the end of August, just days after a total eclipse across the continent (we only got a partial eclipse here, though). We’re still working on recovery from the flooding here, four months later. But in the meantime a couple more hurricanes made landfall, harming Florida, and then serious damage to Puerto Rico. And fires started burning in the West, everywhere from California to Montana.

Less disastrous for Houston was having the Astros win the World Series, and we had an actual snowstorm a couple of weeks ago. In Houston, that brings on a sort of spontaneous celebration.

In the larger nation, there has also been good news this year. We got a Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, who actually reads and understands the Constitution. We got a healthy number of other judges appointed that we think will adjudicate according to the law. (One third of all sitting circuit judges were Obama appointees, so there's a ways to go.) We have an ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who is standing up to that corrupt body of miscreants. ISIS has lost nearly all of its territory. Illegal immigration is down, even without a wall, which is at least an improvement. Unemployment is down, and incomes are beginning to rise.

I don’t know that we can credit President Trump with all of this, but having him in office makes all of those pieces of good news possible, whereas having a Democrat—any Democrat—in office this past year would have meant we would have none of that good news, and probably a lot more bad news that we don’t want to imagine.

A piece from American Thinker, “Trump’s Momentous First Year,” lists Trump’s first year accomplishments, if you’d like something more complete. I’m sure there will be other similar lists as we approach the new year, or the anniversary of inauguration in a few weeks.

But the big good news lately has been about Congress finally passing a tax reform bill, officially called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 

Speaker Paul Ryan, after the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom, found here

News surrounding that—because news comes mostly through distorted sources—has been fear-mongering, at best. Nancy Pelosi called it Armageddon. Apparently, Democrats think people will be dying in the streets if they have a little more of their money in their own hands, instead of in government’s clutches. And it’s on the backs of the middle class, they claim. But almost everybody will be getting a tax cut. Those few that aren’t are all above the middle class.

Business Insider offers this estimate, showing what happens in 2018 (and it gets better in 2025): 

   

·         Bottom quintile (Incomes less than $25,000 a year): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $60, increasing after tax incomes by 0.4%. This would account for 1% of the federal tax change. 1.2% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 53.9% would receive a cut.

·         Middle quintile (Incomes from $49,000 to $86,000): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $930, increasing after-tax incomes by 2.9%. This would account for 11.2% of the federal tax change. 7.3% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 91.3% would receive a cut.

·         Top quintile (Income of $149,400 and above): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $7,640, increasing after-tax incomes by 1.6%. This would account for 65.3% of the federal tax change. 6.2% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 93.7% would receive a cut.

·         95th to 99th percentiles (Incomes from $308,000 to $733,000): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $13,480, increasing after-tax incomes by 4.1%. This would account for 22.1% of the federal tax change. 9.3% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 90.7% would receive a cut.

It’s hard to give tax cuts to people who aren’t paying taxes, so, naturally, people who are paying higher taxes are going to benefit more from a tax cut. Unless you’re really into coveting, that’s understandable and fine with everybody.

So, for the sake of those opposing tax cuts, and the media, and anyone else worried about lessening government’s stranglehold over people’s lives, maybe we need to do a little mini lesson on the related economics of tax cuts.

Taxes are money that the government confiscates by force from its citizens—preferably with the approval of the citizens, to be used for essential government services. Taxes, are, then, the people’s money that has been entrusted to government.

Government only spends money; it does not create wealth. Any “revenue” government generates is actually collecting taxes and tariffs—taking money from the people. So, when we’re talking about a budget, we want it large enough to cover the proper role of government—protecting life, liberty, and property—but not so large that our money is wasted. Early on it was assumed about $20 a year ought to do. Really.

I’ve written a number of times about government overspending [here and here]. We do not have a problem with not bringing in enough tax dollars; we have an overspending problem.

The Laffer Curve
from "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future," 2004

This tax bill doesn’t address that underlying problem. But cutting taxes is likely to raise government revenue. That’s because of a thing we call the Laffer Curve. [I wrote about it here and here.] According to Laffer’s theory, there’s a sweet spot for getting maximum revenue. Too high or too low and you don’t get that maximum amount. If revenue goes up after a tax cut, then you know taxes were too high.

In complete ignorance of the Laffer Curve, there’s this weird rule requiring any tax cuts to be offset, or “paid for.” The purpose is to keep from increasing the deficit, but it doesn’t really do that. And it’s a futile exercise, since we know from experience what happens when taxes are lowered. Here’s how Philip Bump at the WashingtonPost put it: 

[Speaker Paul] Ryan on Wednesday morning offered his nebulous assessment: “Nobody knows” if the cuts will pay for themselves. That’s true, given the uncertainty that surrounds the models. But that’s a bit like saying “nobody knows” if it’s going to rain when the forecasters say there’s a 90 percent chance: You still will probably grab an umbrella.

So even big government spenders ought to be in favor of lower taxes in order to increase revenue. It’s odd that they don’t; it makes it look like they would rather control larger portions of each individual’s money than have more money to work with.

It has been a rough week for Democrats, who stood against tax cuts for the American people. Afterward, what can they say? “We tried to save you from having more of your own money to spend as you see fit”? Well, they’ve been saying the tax cuts aren’t enough (even though they were against any at all). And they’re complaining that they’re not permanent (they sunset in 10 years, as the Bush tax cuts did, but only if Democrats are in power when the sunset comes).

Bernie Sanders, for example, admitted on CNN that tax cuts for nearly all middle-class American taxpayers “is a very good thing.” But then he added, “That’s why we should have made the tax cuts for the middle class permanent.” Of course, it was the refusal of Democrats to discuss any tax cuts at all that led to the ten-year sunset compromise. So Ted Cruz reached out to Bernie by Twitter, saying, 

I agree, @BernieSanders -- let's make the middle-class tax cuts permanent. Join me, we'll co-sponsor legislation (I've already got it drafted) that does exactly that, and we'll get it passed in January!

One happy detail in the tax cut bill is the elimination of the Obamacare mandate, which, we can hope, will lead to the demise of that monstrosity, hopefully before the demise of the health care sector of our economy.

The best news is that business taxes, which have been the highest in the developed world, were lowered from around 35% to 20%. That’s still quite a lot higher than Ireland (11%) or Russia (12%), where lower business taxes have spurred growth, and would have been a good example to follow, but it’s a good improvement.

There has been some concern that businesses won’t invest the money—that they’re already flush with cash that they’re not putting to use. That isn’t likely true. The Great Recession has gone on too long to keep holding onto money. But there is a hesitation to invest in business when there’s uncertainty—such as regulations being added on that they couldn’t have planned for. But regulatory reform is going pretty well under this administration, so there’s less uncertainty.

Ed Fuelner, at the Heritage Foundation, spread this good news: 

AT&T said it plans to give a $1000 bonus to more than 200,000 employees, and to invest $1 billion in the economy. Boeing announced a $300 million investment. FedEx said it’ll hire more workers, as did CVS—3,000, to be specific. Comcast reacted to the tax bill and to the repeal of net neutrality by saying that 100,000 of its employees will get a $1,000 bonus.

There were others—and more to come, you can be sure. “This is just the first wave of many such stories,” tax expert Adam Michel told The Daily Signal. “These announcements show that businesses across America will put their tax cut to good use.”

We’ll have to wait and see, to know for sure. But, instead of dread going into 2018, we might as well enjoy some hopeful anticipation for a change.

Show or Tell

Back in writing classes we used to be taught, “Show, Don’t Tell.” It’s the difference between saying, “He cares so much about people,” and “He stopped during the campaign, when no media were around, and helped us dig up a tree stump.”

The contrast between showing and telling came up during Ryan’s speech last week:

President Obama was asked not long ago to reflect on any mistakes he might have made. He said, well, "I haven't communicated enough." He said his job is to "tell a story to the American people"— as if that's the whole problem here? He needs to talk more, and we need to be better listeners?

Ladies and gentlemen, these past four years we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House. What's missing is leadership in the White House. And the story that Barack Obama does tell, forever shifting blame to the last administration, is getting old. The man assumed office almost four years ago— isn't it about time he assumed responsibility?

I’ve intended, to be fair, to give some listening time to the DNC convention this week, after enjoying so many inspiring speeches during last week’s RNC convention. But I don’t have the stomach to do the full job as a journalist would be required to do. So mostly here today I’m going to share a few memorable phrases and speeches.

There has been a false narrative for a long time about “those evil, rich Republicans,” and that class envy theme is a basic attack this campaign. Of all the candidates they could use this against, Obama’s team is stuck with characterizing Mitt Romney this way. When they do the story telling, it’s pretty rough.

There’s a now-famous ad, where they try to tie him in to the death of a woman (available on YouTube, but blocked now because it’s so provably false). Two years after Romney left Bain Capital to run the Salt Lake Olympics, Bain decided to close a plant. A man named Joe Soptic was offered a buyout, with which he could continue to keep his insurance; he chose not to take it. So when the plant closed, he was without income and insurance, until he found another job. His wife was still employed and insured for some years hence. He eventually got a new job but for some reason chose not to purchase insurance for his wife. She suffered an accident that led to her being unable to do her previous job, and her insurance was not continued, and he did not then begin purchasing insurance for her. Some 5-6 years after the closing of the plant (probably 7+ years after Romney left), Mr. Soptic’s wife died of cancer. When he took her to the hospital, where she got a diagnosis and care even without insurance, she had stage 4 cancer and died in a matter of weeks.

His claim that it was Romney’s fault his wife died of cancer is about as sturdy as a cobweb. But he was a real person, whose wife actually did die of cancer, so the storytellers went with it. If there were a better actual story of harm done by Romney, don’t you think they would have told it?

Romney has a hard time telling people, “No, really, I’m kind and generous.” It goes against the grain to tell that, when you really are that. So it took others to tell the true story about him. It started with Ann Romney’s speech, which portrayed him as real and caring. She has been telling this about him for years; her story about how he cared for her when she was sticken with MS and unsure whether she’d ever be able to walk and function again, is powerful and memorable—and very real. But not new, except that suddenly more people are hearing her.

But the newer stories were the community friends he has quietly helped over the years. Pat and Ted Oparowski told their story of a dying teenage son then Mitt Romney had gone out of his way to care for.

And Pam Finlayson told of her daughter, born premature, who received personal care and support from the Romneys, up through her death at age 26, a year ago. This story was especially touching to me; our first child was born 3 ½ months early, and we got to keep him with us only a few hours, so I know what her worry must have been. We had friends sit with us in the hospital as well. One of these close friends later went to grad school at MIT and ended up living in Belmont, MA, for many years. I’m sure this woman’s story is true, because I have known people who have lived that story in my life.

The Romney acts of kindness are summarized in this American Thinker article.

Romney is a doer, not a teller.

I’m happy to see that is true of his running mate, Ryan, as well. I kept the transcript of his inspiring speech, and share here a few of my favorite moments:

·         Before the math and the momentum overwhelm us all, we are going to solve this nation's economic problems.

·         After four years of government trying to divide up the wealth, we will get America creating wealth again.

·         President Obama is the kind of politician who puts promises on the record, and then calls that the record.

·         College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. [Notice how much more effective this is than simply saying, “Too many young college graduates can’t get jobs,” which is true and concrete, but less vivid.]

·         When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.

·         The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he's a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

·         We will not try to replace our founding principles; we will reapply our founding principles.

While we’re talking about writing skills, that last one is an example of parallel structure, something Lincoln used to use with great effect: “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground” ("Gettysburg Address").

I have long appreciated Romney’s speech writing. He says what he needs to for me to understand the ideas. But he is a better doer than teller. Ryan may be a better communicator of those same ideas. It’s a good match. But, with them together, we can expect action in the right direction, regardless of how the story is told.

Looking Up

Mitt Romney at GOP Convention
photo from Ann Romney's Facebook page

Here at the Spherical Model, instead of a left/right model, we have a three-dimensional model, with the good at the top: civilization, freedom, free enterprise. The southern hemisphere contains the bad: savagery, tyranny, controlled economy. The side-to-side direction is basically neutral, but based on interest, from individual/family at the center west, and expanding outward through local, state, regional, national, on up to  global perspective. The general rule is that the controller of decisions should be left to the most local level possible; otherwise there is usurpation of power, which is a tyrannical position (southern hemisphere).

So when I look at who I should vote for, I look at how well the candidates’ ideas line up with the principles that we know lead to civilization, freedom, and free enterprise. This week at the GOP convention (which I watched from home) has been a good week. A lot of looking up—how to get up to the northern, civilized, freedom zone.

Others may be watching for strategy, or for excitement that will motivate the army of activists to go get out the vote, or for some rhetoric so soaring that it will be remembered and compared in future years. I very much enjoy a brilliant, well-said phrase; I collect the quotable. But I mostly leave that kind of examination to others. I want to know the philosophy and character, to know how well it lines up with what we know will place us in the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model.

There was much to enjoy in Paul Ryan’ talk, as well as speeches by Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Chris Christie, and others—and I may take a later post just to enjoy those. But what we need to know is whether we have upper hemisphere hopes from our future president—who will lead the direction of the country. And Romney’s speech did what it needed to for me.

He used the word “optimism” four times, and referred, in various ways, to hope for a better future a few more times. That in itself is upward looking—if it’s tied to the right principles. And I believe it is.

Some of what we need to know about Romney, I have known for a long time; it was a matter of getting the picture out for others, during a time when cynicism is so rampant that a decent family man who wants to serve others seems too good to be true. But he has indeed lived his life that way. Some of the telling had to come from others, and that happened this week. Ann Romney began to introduce this good man to people who hadn’t noticed before, or been willing to believe who he was. And that was followed by a string of actual recipients of his quiet, unpaid, unrecognized service. This must have gotten the story out, because after his speech, the PBS commentators stumbled, trying to come up with descriptors for the speech that clearly didn’t align with their worldview, but they decided to agree Romney is just, really, a decent man.

Does he believe in God, so that he can understand God is the giver of our inalienable rights? Yes. Does he live the Ten Commandments as the basic level of civilization? Yes, and refined with the Sermon on the Mount, I Corinthians 13, and other scriptural directions on how to be the person God wants you to be.

Does he place family as the central civilizing force? Yes.

About Paul Ryan, he said, “I love the way he lights up around his kids and how he's not embarrassed to show the world how much he loves his mom.”

About his parents, and then his and Ann’s family, he said:

My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all – the gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would BE, and much less about what we would DO.

Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to pass on to our sons and now to our grandchildren. All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family--and God's love—this world would be a far more gentle and better place.

The line I highlighted lets us know, maybe more than anything, that this is not someone who believes in taking power to enforce government on minions.  This line, about connecting with his church and community, also tells us he understands how thriving civilization happens:

And that's how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families for our joy, our support, in good times and bad. It is both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, our faiths.

A look at Romney’s business record is an example for the world of free enterprise at its best. He told a little of the Bain story—and having it come after the “evil vulture capitalist” claim was revealed as a lie made it clear his success was real success. And that allowed him to say this:

These are American success stories. And yet the centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression? In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it.

We know he understands and believes in the free enterprise system when he follows his story with this:

It's the genius of the American free enterprise system – to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow's prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today's.

That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: "you are better off today than you were four years ago."

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president.

He didn’t have to be personally negative about President Obama; that would have seemed gratuitous piling on when it is clear to everyone—everyone—that he has failed to provide financial success, American freedom, and social thriving. Obama has failed because he follows the rules that keep people in the southern hemisphere of tyranny. He is literally a tyrant, whether he has the personality of other worldwide tyrants or not. But it isn’t necessary to use that kind of term; all that is necessary is to point out that what we want—personal freedom, economic opportunity, and thriving civilization—can be reached on a path that claims government control is the answer.

This was one of my favorite lines, because what I want during this campaign is to see clearly the truth about the candidates. This shows the contrast:

President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family.

He doesn’t mean he will micromanage your family from Washington; he means he will set an example of a strong family—and how to Dad—but also will help by getting roadblocks out of the way so families can succeed through hard work and helping one another. Economically, things will get better. Freedom will improve with adherence to the Constitution:

That America, that united America, will uphold the constellation of rights that were endowed by our Creator, and codified in our Constitution.

That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need.

That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children.

This is an America we remember, if we’re old enough and from the right places (I am both). And now I feel free to hope we will return to thriving. Things are indeed looking up.

Romney-Ryan 2012

Romney announce Paul Ryan as VP pick
photo: Mary Altaffer/AP:

My heart is lighter today at the prospects for our beloved country’s future.

We were wrong (as most were) on who Romney would pick as a running mate, but not disappointed. My biggest concern about Paul Ryan as a possibility was, how will we replace him in Congress on the budget committee? But I believe we can deal with that.

What I see is a very articulate, remarkably positive representative of our constitutional rights. One of the most encouraging reports I read concerned how similar Ryan is to the kind of people Romney surrounded himself with at Bain: very smart, well-educated, detail oriented and strong on data, and scrupulously honest. He expected a lot from the few worthy of hiring. It wasn’t about some good old boy network, chatting up deals on a golf course; the Bain way is thorough, logical, and sensible. Unprepared employees were much more likely to feel a Bain chill than an underperforming company.

Ryan is smart, data oriented, and fascinated by policy as it relates to the Constitution and free-market principles. That is also true of Romney. If you actually read or listen to his speeches, consistently Romney focuses on positive free-market principles. He has had the disadvantage of trying, as something of a data wonk, to explain the principles to liberals in Massachusetts, and then have each tiny phrase taken out of context by opponents trying to paint him as moderate-to-liberal. Ryan is a good fit for VP because he is so very much like Romney; he is not going to pull a different direction or concern himself with his own agenda. They have the same agenda.

Romney’s ticket benefits because, when people hear Ryan, they hear the policy message connected to the underlying principles of freedom—much less filtered thus far by opponents and the media-in-their-pocket. Romney and Ryan say the same words, and suddenly the message gets through the fog.

The two of them are possibly also the most scandal-free pair to run for office in living memory. Both are faithful family men, both devoted to their religions. They surround themselves with similar sterling people. As Biden says (but, as is usual for him, unaware of the irony), it is "a clear choice the voters face this Noveber."

Romney has possibly the best preparatory experience to be president of any candidate in my lifetime. Ryan has good experience, and the right methods for learning that, if needed, even at his young age, he could step in as president. Certainly without a day of on-the-job training, he could handle the job better than the current underprepared chief executive. But think how much preparation he will have after eight years of being mentored in executive skill by a President Romney.

The enemy is rallying; the method will be that Ryan’s budget was all about cutting Medicare and starving seniors—despite the $700 Billion Obama cut from Medicare as part of Obamacare. Here is the basic info you need to know to fend off the media distortions (coming from American EnterpriseInstitute):

1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.

2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.

3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals. Is this “gutting Medicare” and “ending Medicare as we know it”? In reality, it’s the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.

Romney, of course, has his own plan. It’s been out there for a year. He keeps paring down the message to make it more accessible, but the media continues to insist he has been vague and has no plan. While there are differences, in principle these two understand one another. Ryan has been an advisor, as well as a surrogate, to Romney.

If you like smart, logical, fact-supported and principle-based leadership, it’s hard to dream up a better pair. An amusing, brief summary of “20 Reasons Why Ryan Was a Good VP Pick” is a good read.

A day or two before the announcement, I came across this video of Ryan, speaking before the vote on Obamacare. It says in under two minutes what this election is about: the direction of America. Enjoy. And then find a way to support the campaign.

The Proper Role of Government--Again

There’s a method used by the opposition to freedom, that we’ve seen examples of this week. It’s about time it stirred up a response. I’m referring specifically to Obama’s lecture last week to small business owners that they didn’t succeed on their own merits.

The way he said it was offensive to hard-working entrepreneurs everywhere (no surprise). But to be fair, the minute-and-a-half clip we keep hearing [linked in Monday’s post] was taken from a larger context that made it clear he was talking mainly about infrastructure. It’s not a new point. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat candidate for senator from Massachusetts, used almost the exact same wording last September:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there. Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

There was indeed a social contract; it was that, if we pay taxes, we would receive these particular services from government: roads, protection of property rights, etc. (They also mention using employees who were educated by government—but personally I see that as a hardship to the employer; a privately educated populace would make for better employees. But I digress.) But is there actually a successful entrepreneur in question who got rich but illegally avoided paying those taxes? It seems to me the contract was already kept. But they’re adding on some new “contract,” something called “you couldn’t possibly have exceeded the success of others without some special help, so you therefore owe some special extra payment.”

That, in a nutshell, is why business owners, who put in the risk of time, energy, and money—all on top of paying taxes—resent being told they don’t deserve to enjoy the fruit of their labors.

But there’s another point Obama et al. make: that conservatives are wrong to hate government, because government does all these great things that we enjoy. Here’s the fallacy: conservatives don’t believe in anarchy, or absence of government. Conservatives believe in limited government, with the purpose of protecting our God-given rights. Infrastructure, such as road-building, is often included because it benefits generally—the whole populace, rather than particular special interests. (That’s what “general welfare” means in the Constitution: for the benefit of all at once.)

Whenever statists make this argument, they say, “They’re going to lay off police and firefighters.” Those making the argument are talking about federal government, but the things they say will disappear are not federal responsibilities; they are mostly local, with a few state responsibilities tossed in. What should the federal government be doing? Protecting our borders and our sovereignty, protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic (in other words, from invasion, from foreign criminals on our soil, and from home-grown criminals, particularly those crossing state lines), and interstate infrastructure. There’s not much else.

The Constitution spells out how the federal government will be run, and enumerates the limited powers—reserving all else to the individuals and the states. It’s clear. And if it wasn’t, we have the writings of the founders—volumes, like The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and the copious notes kept by James Madison during the constitutional convention. Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, but those who wish to conserve the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution) still have the same philosophical underpinnings, still want the same freedoms, still believe God is the source of our rights rather than government. Of course we know there must be government; Constitutionalists were the ones who set it up, to help us protect our life, liberty, and property.

But to equate wanting to limit federal government to its enumerated powers with wanting no government—with the result of society suffering without police, firefighters, or either local or interstate roads—is a sleight of hand that is pretty much an outright lie. And there’s something very disingenuous about claiming that there’s an either/or equation where if you benefit from any level of government at any level, you should therefore submit to anything government wants to impose “for your good.”

Paul Ryan says it well here (the image is from The Heritage Foundation’s Facebook page).