The Spherical Model blog started five years ago March 4th,
on a Friday that year too. This is one post short of 700. So, let’s celebrate!
We might as well take this opportunity to explain, once
again, what The Spherical Model is.
The Spherical Model is an alternative to right/left, in
looking at political ideas. Instead of a linear spectrum, it’s
three-dimensional, just complex enough to also show the interrelationships
between the political sphere and the economic and social spheres.
The long version is at the website SphericalModel.com. This
contains an introduction and four longish articles:
Since the concept is three dimensional, maybe you’ll
understand it better visually. So I have explained it in a video, which I’ll
repeat here:
I use this blog to talk about the three spheres, how they
interrelate, and sometimes how we’re seeing these concepts play out in current
events. So I’ll offer one short example today.
I’ve been involved in a private
conversation with some people I like who are supporting Trump, whom I oppose
(and have written why). One reason is that he is a disrupter, and they think
Washington needs a disrupter, because the status quo isn't working.
In the Spherical Model, we recognize that there are two
halves of tyranny: tyranny of the state and tyranny of chaos. Tyrannists
frequently use chaos as an opportunity; they offer themselves as the solution
to chaos, resulting to power for them over their subjects (i.e., “Believe me,
we’re going to be great again.” Trump’s direction of disruption is horizontal,
towards chaos, keeping everything in the southern hemisphere.
Alternatively, disrupting the statist tyranny status quo can be a good thing if the change is northward.
For that to happen, it requires returning to the Constitution’s limited
government (political sphere), getting rid of crony capitalism and refraining
from government interference in free enterprise (economic sphere), and
encouraging a righteous people to value life, family, property, and truth
(social/civilization sphere). The three sphere’s interrelate.
A hypothetical situation has been coming up in conversations
lately—a hypothetical I hope never happens, but that media keeps telling us is
inevitable. That is, a boorish egomaniac with lots of money is lying,
deceiving, and bovine-excrementing his way to the nomination of a party that
used to stand for freedom through small government and strong defense,
prosperity through free markets, and civilization through decent people living
good lives. So the hypothetical situation is, “If the election comes down to
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who will you vote for?”
The answer is neither.
I’ve said this before. I’ve had
conversations with people who, while they support Ted Cruz and hope for a
miracle, are aware Trump might be shoved down our throats. But they would vote
for him to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president. And they are
shocked that I would not. I do not think Trump is the lesser of two evils in
that case; I can’t be sure he is not a worse evil. Either one would mean
ignoring our Constitution and our rights, and damage our great nation for at
least a generation and possibly beyond repair. I will not vote to condone
either choice that leads to that same end.
I was encouraged when I had this conversation with son
Political Sphere, who agrees with me, and has a good way of putting it:
Say someone’s pointing a gun at my head, and they say, “You
have to choose, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, or I’ll shoot you.” I’d say, “Then
shoot me now.”
Yeah. That’s how I feel.
Over the weekend, I was surprised to learn we are far from
alone. Apparently there were protesters at the Houston debate last Thursday,
with signs representing their campaign: “I don’t know, not Trump, though.” (You
can buy yard signs and T=shirts.) And over the weekend, a top trending hashtag
on Twitter was #NeverTrump. It means people are refusing to
vote for this man, no matter what.
I’ve read a couple of good explanations of this viewpoint.
One is from a blog called RhymesWithRight, which appears to be written by a
social studies teacher in Seabrook (between Houston and Galveston). He titles
his piece “Why #NeverTrump Is the Only Moral Position.” He starts out
acknowledging that Republicans are having this conversation: “What do we do if
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee in November?”
This question probably comes up in some form every election
cycle, but the overwhelming answer in the past has always been to go ahead and
support the nominee, however imperfect. That even included John McCain in 2008,
and Bob Dole back in the 90s. But this time it is coming at us as a moral
dilemma.
RhymesWithRight says,
It is a fundamental tenet of traditional Christian moral
teaching that one may not choose to commit an objectively immoral (malum in se) act. If an act is gravely
and objectively morally evil, one cannot do it, even if the result of doing it
might be good or better than the alternative.
He gives an example of what that means. Then he applies it
to the election:
When approaching the ballot box, one has the obligation to
vote in a manner that is objectively moral. In most elections, this is an easy
task, for there is usually at least one non-corrupt candidate whose positions
and promises are, if not perfect, within the realm of moral acceptability. If
there is more than one acceptable candidate, it is acceptable to vote for any
one of them—though the more virtuous act is to vote for the greater good. If
there is not such a candidate, it is the obligation of a moral person to
abstain from voting for any candidate—a vote for the lesser evil is still a
choice to do evil, and the choice to do evil is always objectively wrong. The
utilitarian argument that one should choose the lesser evil must be rejected.
And he explains why Trump is an unacceptable evil:
Why can't a Christian—or any individual with a functioning
moral compass—vote for Donald Trump? That's easy—Trump combines the hostility
to freedom displayed by both Democrats with Hillary's personal corruption and
Bernie's totalitarian tendencies. Add to that a thin-skin and personal
vindictiveness that rivals the character flaws of Barack Obama and you have a
perfect storm of political evil. Many commentators—not just on the Left, but
also on the Right—have called Trump a fascist…. At a bare minimum, it is fair
to label Trump a proto-fascist. On that basis alone, it is morally unacceptable
to vote for him, because the racism, support for violence against opponents,
and efforts to intimidate and control the press are objective evils which we
cannot legitimately support.
What is the voter to do? The options are, leave that race
blank on the ballot, or vote third-party or write-in. Hopefully, good options
will occur before we’re faced with such an eventuality.
If you want someone more well-known, let’s turn to Senator
Ben Sasse of Nebraska. I’m really beginning to like this guy. He was having this very discussion on
Facebook and Twitter over the weekend. Yesterday he did a long Facebook post
explaining his position. He acknowledges the frustration of the voters. He then
makes sure they know how he got to the Senate, and why no one should say he is “establishment.” Then he says,
My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical
matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely
hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as
the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.
And he explains why. Here’s the introductory essence:
Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on
tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like
President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in
the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances,
with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public
officials is to be public “servants.” The law is king, and the people are boss.
But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word “Reign”—like he thinks he’s
running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king.
We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic.
He gives some good teaching about parties, about the
Constitution, and about the president’s job to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend
the Constitution.” About the meaning of America, in words Christians and other
religious people understand, he says,
Government exists only because the world is fallen, and some
people want to take your property, your liberty, and your life. Government is
tasked with securing a framework for ordered liberty where “we the people” can
in our communities voluntarily build something great together for our kids and
grandkids. That’s America. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom
of association, freedom of speech—the First Amendment is the heartbeat of the
American Constitution, of the American idea itself.
Then he asks, “Do you believe the beating heart of Mr.
Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s
been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment—or an attack on it?” which
he follows with numerous examples of Donald Trump’s public statements that show he’s
in attack mode on our rights.
What will Senator Sasse do in this hypothetical? “If Donald
Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for
some third candidate—a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.”
I’m with him on that.
There are more #NeverTrumpers. Hobby Lobby founder David
Green, whose company is under duress by the Obama administration to go against
religious beliefs, says he will never vote for Trump. And Senator Marco Rubio began using the hashtag. Poor Donald had to face this while the
news that he wouldn’t denounce David Duke and the KKK went viral, and
suspicions about his fraud case, his refusal to reveal his taxes, and some unsavory, possibly mafia business
connections have been bubbling up. Not a good weekend for him.
There are also comic sources of #NeverTrump. One is comedian John Oliver, on
Last Week Tonight. In his 21-minute monologue, Oliver expresses what many of us feel:
At this point, Donald Trump is America’s back mole. It may
have seemed harmless a year ago, but now that it’s gotten frighteningly bigger,
it is no longer wise to ignore it.
Yes. Why didn’t we do something long before the weekend before
Super Tuesday? (Oliver adds information about the Trump name, being changed at some point from Drumpf--which he thinks we should return to, just for the sound and look of it, in case you're interested.)
Most of us (the roughly 70-75% of Republican voters who vote
against Trump in primaries) are stunned that there is support—in the party supposedly of
good guys who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization—for
this corrupt crony capitalist with a potty mouth and nonexistent moral compass.
We’re in shock that he’s not just laughed off the political stage. Especially
when we have had an array of not only acceptable but even exemplary candidates.
Especially Ted Cruz, who was born and raised for such a time as this.
How can we even be in a position where we have to worry
about this dilemma?
Angry, unthinking, uneducated voters who watch too much
reality TV, is the answer.
But since it’s close enough to cause grave concern, it’s a good
time to go through the thinking—before we feel like a gun is pointed at our
heads. What will we do? What line will we not cross? How firm are we in our
principles?
I pray this hypothetical never materializes. But it’s good, right
now, to think things through. Party loyalty is only valuable if it gets us to
our goal—back to the Constitution. But we will not sacrifice our beloved,
inspired Constitution for someone who recently, temporarily, claimed to belong
to our party while mocking who we are and what we stand for. I won't be "guilted" into party loyalty under these circumstances.
This post isn’t about religious freedom, exactly. I just
came across some words from scripture worth sharing as we’re in the midst of
choosing future leadership.
I know who to trust—the giver of our rights.
I will say of
the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.—Psalm
92:2
We need good leaders, because:
When the
righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth
rule, the people mourn.—Proverbs 29:2
For
as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the
people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good,
therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become
corrupted.—Book of Mormon, Helaman 5:2
And then there are these basic principles about the role of
government, and what kind of leaders to seek:
1 We believe that
governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds
men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and
administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that
no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held
inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience,
the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that
all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce
the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and
justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic….
4
…We do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules
of worship to bind the consciences of men nor dictate forms for public or
private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never
control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the
soul.
—Doctrine
and Covenants 134:1-4
I’m not quite without hope in the people of America. We need
to do all we can to choose leaders who uphold our inspired Constitution, and
who will keep their word and act on principle. We have that option in this presidential
election. It should be an obvious and easy choice. But it should have been an
easy choice four years ago.
I pray there are enough of us truly seeking what is right
that God will have mercy on us and deliver us from those—of either party—who
seek to impose their will on us. We want, have prayed for, and can choose a
leader who will “seek not for power, but to pull it down,” who will “seek not
for honor of the world, but for the glory of [our] God, and the freedom and
welfare of [our] country” (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36).
If you haven’t yet gotten the confirming spirit of the Lord
telling you in your mind and in your heart whether you are making a wise
choice, “lean not unto thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5), but get God’s
will in your heart before you cast your vote. For the sake of all of us.
On Thursday, in Primary Recommendations, Part I, we covered
the statewide and some Harris County positions. Today we’ll cover the judicial
races, any other county positions, and the four propositions on the ballot.
This is going to be long, but I’m not going to split it into
another post, because early voting is already halfway over, and people are waiting
for my information. So, if you want to go about this the short way, look for the
races and my choices in bold. Again, to get your own sample ballot in Harris County, go to www.HarrisVotes.com.
I’m going to start with the few random races we didn’t cover
already, so we can cover the judicial races all together. I’m still referring
to the endorsements from various groups and friends, including the summary of
such the matrix of endorsements put out by SREC SD7 Committeeman Mark Ramsey. For judicial races,
I’m adding in recommendations from a friend who works in the DA’s office and
has some inside information. Some of the candidates I have met and researched
on my own as well. And for most of the judicial races, I worked through the
information with son Political Sphere, who is working as a prosecutor now. An
additional source you might use for statewide judicial races is www.TexasJudges.org.
County Attorney
According to the official website, “The Harris County
Attorney's Office represents the County, its departments, elected and appointed
officials, and employees in all civil matters that involve county business. Our
Office also represents the Harris County Hospital District, the Harris County
Flood Control District, the Harris County Appraisal Review Board, and the
Greater 911 Emergency Network, which are separate legal entities.” One public
case they handled was a suit against Volkswagen for violations concerning their
fraud to avoid clean air measurements.
This has been a challenging position to decide. I’ve changed
my mind even after my discussion with Political Sphere, based on meeting the
two candidates on Saturday.
Jim Leitner for Harris County Attorney Photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebook
Jim Leitner receives endorsements from Steve Hotze’s
Conservative Republicans of Harris County and Gary Polland’s Texas Conservative
Review—all the others on Mark Ramsey’s list go to Chris Carmona. Hotze’s and
Polland’s magazine slates are least likely to convince me in the absence of
people I know personally to be conservative. However, Leitner also got the nod
from my prosecutor friend who knows him.
So Political Sphere and I did some online research. Leitner
is older and clearly more experienced. He has worked in the DA’s office. In his
private practice he manages several employees. I looked for a website and found
only a video on YouTube, which listed a website on it, but that site does not
exist. Not helpful.
Carmona is much younger. He has business experience prior to
his law practice, beginning in 2010. His practice covers family law, personal
injury, and other normal solo practice work. He does have a website.
Chris Carmona for Harris County Attorney Photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebook
After that look, we wondered why the conservative groups,
like CCHC [Conservative Coalition of Harris County, which includes a number of
people I know personally) gave Carmona a near endorsement of 67%. [70% is
considered an endorsement.] Maybe it is because he is a strong constitutional
conservative, we supposed. However, the US Constitution doesn’t come up much in
this job.
So, we were leaning toward Leitner, even against the odds,
pending Saturday’s Tea Party meeting. Both spoke. Leitner first. He made me
uncomfortable. In the brief 10 minutes he had to convince us of his
qualifications, he connected himself with Pat Lykos, the previous DA who was
ousted in the primary a couple of years ago by Mike Anderson (who died of
cancer the year after being elected, and was replaced by his wife, Devon
Anderson). He accused Mike Anderson of creating a specific scandal to blame on
Lykos to oust her. I had never heard of the particular scandal; there was much
else against :sudden accusation against Mike Anderson, who seemed to me very
principled by all reports. Leitner did exclude Devon Anderson from the
accusation.
Leitner seemed defensive—when I was unaware there was any
reason for him to be.
Then Chris Carmona spoke. He pointed out that, while his
opponent has more years of experience, Carmona actually has considerably more
experience in the issues handled by the County Attorney’s Office. He seemed
positive, conservative, and trustworthy. After the dark and scary speech we’d
just heard, I could see clearly why so many conservative friends went with
Carmona.
There are eight Constable precincts in Harris County. This
is a law enforcement division. A large part of their budget comes from
contracts with homeowners associations. They patrol the neighborhoods and
answer house calls. They write citations for violations—and, just to clarify,
none of that goes to their budget, so they do not have quotas, nor would they
have any reason to. They do other law enforcement as well as needed, supporting
the other law enforcement divisions: the Sheriff’s office, Houston PD, other
incorporated city PDs, and anything I’m forgetting.
Precinct 5 is in west and northwest Harris County, south of
Hwy 290. (Technically, south of the railroad alongside 290; and Precinct 4 is
just to the north, so also of interest to our Tea Party.) The two candidates
are Ted Heap and Al Hoang. Phil Camus, the current Constable, is retiring at
age 80.
Ted Heap is the Chief of Precinct 5. He has been a cop for
32 years, holding every position from the ground up in the precinct. He’s aware
of the growth, and believes he understands how to handle it efficiently, which
doesn’t necessarily mean more money and more cops. He has worked with the
budget, which is about $37.5 million.
Ted Heap, for Constable of Precinct 5 photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebookf
His opponent is a defense attorney with no law enforcement
experience. If he were elected, he would have to spend his first nine months
going through academy training in order to qualify.
It may be that much of the job is administrative. Being a
cop isn’t required. But it sure is helpful. If nothing else, for morale. You
have experienced, hard-working police officers, and instead of bringing in
someone to lead them who has been one of them and understands them, you bring
in an outsider who doesn’t understand what they go through. That makes it hard
to feel respect going both directions.
Hoang has an interesting history, much of it as an activist
in Viet Nam. He has run for state rep. before. I couldn’t find a website for
his campaign and didn’t meet him. There is some information here.
Ted Heap was at
Saturday’s meeting. (We’ve been getting half a dozen candidates at every
meeting for months.) He struck me as the quintessential lifetime good-guy Texas
cop. I’m persuaded he’ll do a good job.
I haven’t studied Precinct
4, nearby, but endorsements across the board are going to Mark Herman, rather than Rolf Nelson. There’s probably good reason for
that.
Harris County School
Trustee
There are two positions up for vote, Position 1 Precinct 2,
and Position 2 Precinct 4. My ballot includes only Position 2 Precinct 4.
(These are not the same precincts as the Constable race, nor the voting
precinct.) Eric Dick gets recommendations across the board. Danell Fields bravely came to speak at our Tea
Party a while back. She loves kids and education, but she was woefully unaware
of any of the issues we are concerned about with the HC School Board and its
very existence. So, Eric Dick gets
my vote.
Statewide Judicial
Races
Texas’s Supreme Court has two divisions, by purpose. The
Supreme Court and The Court of Criminal Appeals. There are three Supreme Court
positions up for election this primary: place 3, place 5, and place 9. And
there are three Court of Criminal Appeals positions: place 2, place 5, and
place 6.
Supreme Court Place 3 and Place 9 are fairly clear-cut
decisions. For Place 3, Michael Massengale
gets 100% endorsement from CCHC (my friends), as well as most of the more
conservative sources, and my DA friend. Debra Lehrmann gets a few of the
magazine slates. Lehrmann is the incumbent, and yet she has this much
opposition. Many who supported her when she was elected are against her now.
She has tried to undo tort reform, using personal leanings rather than the law.
If tort law needs changes, pretending she has the power to do it from the bench
is not the way. Meanwhile, Massengale has been excellent on the court of
appeals in Houston. I’m going with Massengale.
In the Place 9
race, the logical choice is Eva Guzman.
She writes well-reasoned decisions. She receives unanimous support from all the
groups and individuals I’ve gotten recommendations from. Her opponent, Joe
Pool, is the son of a famous Democrat congressman from the Dallas area. He’s a
trial lawyer who has tried three separate times running for a supreme court position,
never garnering more than 30% of the vote. There’s no reason for him to get more
than that this time either.
The Place 5 race
is a little more confounding, not least because both candidates have the same
last name: Paul Green and Rick Green.
Paul Green is the
incumbent. Rick Green is a legislator and radio
commentator, and speaker for WallBuilders, which puts him in favor with
homeschoolers and constitutional conservatives, which is a good fit for me
personally. So it’s not surprising he’s getting some attention. He has a
particular complaint against Paul Green, regarding the Texas v. Naylor case.
It was a case in which a lower court
judge granted a divorce and division of property and child custody to a
same-sex couple—which implies that Texas recognized the marriage as valid,
before the SCOTUS ruling last summer. Paul Green did not concur that the decision
was correct, but that there was no one with standing attempting the appeal. It
was law related, not necessarily his personal feelings. Rick Green is asserting he is against family values.
I don’t understand getting standing. But my son tells me
that in general Paul Green writes reasoned opinions and is well respected.
Meanwhile, Rick Green has very little patience for
disagreement, and possibly very little patience or personality for the
nitty-gritty boring detail of ruling on the actual law as written.
I can see why those who favor Rick Green are doing so. But
in this case I’m avoiding a gut reaction and going for reasoned experience. I’ll
be voting for Paul Green.
Court of Criminal
Appeals Place 2 has three candidates: Mary Lou Keel, Ray Wheless, and Chris
Oldner. Keel is the incumbent. The endorsements are about half and half for
Keel and Wheless. However, looking at their experience, both Keel and Oldman
have board certifications in criminal trials. That implies they have had a
number of years’ experience in the particular field of the certification and
have met other qualifications. Wheless is board certified in civic trial and
personal injury law. Keel has handled 279 criminal appeals, including 5 death
penalty cases; her experience is considerably better than Oldner’s. Wheless
might be good for another type of court, but his experience isn’t a good fit
for this one. I’ll be voting for Mary
Lou Keel.
Court of Criminal
Appeals Place 5 has four candidates: Sid Harle, Brent Webster, Steve Smith,
and Scott Walker. There is no incumbent. The choice among everyone I know is
between Harle and Webster. Harle oversaw a rather famous case in which Michael
Morton was exonerated, leading to the Michael Morton Act, to protect against
the problems that led to his incarceration. A prosecutor withheld evidence of a
second person in the house in which the murder took place. Some years later
that second person murdered again, using the same MO. Eventual DNA evidence
proved who the real perpetrator was, and Michael Morton was released. The
prosecutor, who had moved on to be an elected judge by then, was sent to
prison.
One concern about Harle is that, in general, some who work
in defense go on to focus more on criminal rights than on victim rights and
applied justice. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is true of Harle, just a
stereotype. Webster has some prosecutor training. But he’s younger and may not
be experienced enough for this court. Political Sphere calls it a tough choice.
Either might be good enough. My prosecutor friend goes with Harle, and that might tip
the balance for me. I believe I’ll vote for Sid Harle.
Court of Criminal
Appeals Place 6 has two candidates: Michael E. Keasler and Richard Davis.
Keasler is the incumbent. He gets endorsements across the board. Keasler has
been a good judge. However, he will be forcibly retired a few years into his
term. He’s now 74. The age of retirement is 75, but if the judge turns 75
during his term, he has until the end of the first year after that. So in a
couple of years he will be replaced with an appointee, who will then have the
advantage of incumbency when first facing voters.
Richard Davis is younger, but not young. He has worked in the
Burnett County DA’s Office, and is a guest lecturer at Baylor Law School. His
county work gives him broad experience in civil and criminal law, including
handling appeals work.
So, if you want to give Keasler support, I totally
understand. But I’m persuaded that Richard Davis
might be a better choice because of the forced retirement Keasler is facing.
Mine is a vote for Davis as a choice of the people, not a vote against Keasler
and his work.
County Courts
I am dealing here only with those with primary opposition. I
am unaware of any unopposed Republican judicial candidates that shouldn’t be
supported. And several of them I support enthusiastically. The time for vetting
them is now, because, in November, Democrats tend to vote straight ticket, while
Republicans hesitate to vote for anyone they haven’t vetted. If we don’t want
Democrats to take over courts in our county, this is the time to get to know
the judicial candidates.
14th Court
of Appeals District, Place 2 is between Kevin Jewell and Bud Wiesedeppe. This
is an open court. Both get about equal endorsements on Mark Ramsey’s matrix.
Jewell gets 73% with CCHC, which is a full endorsement. He also gets the
endorsement of my DA friend. I met him on Saturday. He has the right demeanor,
and has good experience specifically in appellate law, since 1998. There’s a
comparison of experience here, which is confusingly absent for Wiesedeppe, although Wiesedeppe has worked as an
attorney at Woodfill & Pressler since 1997, which I believe is former Harris
County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill’s firm. They stand up on many challenging
social issues. However, I’m not seeing his appellate court experience. I’ll be
voting for Kevin Jewell.
80th
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: Ken Shortreed and Will Archer. Shortreed gets 100% endorsement from
CCHC and a number of others, although Archer gets some endorsements as well. He
gets my DA friend and personal friends as well. I’ve met him in person and feel
good supporting him. He reminds us “Near the bottom of a long ballot, there’s a
Shortreed.” There’s a comparison here.
125th
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: L. A. Olson and Sharon
Hemphill. Sharon Hemphill spoke to us on Saturday. She said the Democrat on the
court now had only been involved in 8 cases prior to becoming a judge, and is
near the bottom of the poll ratings. Complaints are that he doesn’t understand
the law. She has 25 years of experience, representing in 378 cases, including
in district courts as well as family, criminal and federal courts. She is
mediation trained—which she has been involved in since 1991, long before it
became common practice. As experienced as she is, Leif Olson also has good
experience. (Comparison here.) It was some time ago that we saw
him at our Tea Party, but he has impressed more of my friends, including my DA
contact. It’s close to a toss-up; either will be a huge improvement over the
Democrat incumbent. But I’m going with Olson.
151st
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: Jess Hastings and Aaron Gabriel
Adams. Hastings has been attending our Tea Party meetings for years, and I’ve
always thought he was worth supporting. Adams has ten years of experience in
intellectual property and real estate law. Hastings has 25 years of experience
with a wide variety of civil law, including much more court experience. Hastings gets endorsements across the
board. I’ll be voting for Jeff Hastings.
178th
Judicial District Judge has four candidates: Xavier Alfaro, Phil Gommels,
Nile Bailey Alfaro
is qualified—and has the right kind of experience—he’s a better bet.
Xavier Alfaro for 178th District Judge photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebook
Copeland, and Bash Sharma. Alfaro gets most of the endorsements of
friends. I’ve also met Gommels and Sharma at recent Tea Party meetings. Sharma
wasn’t impressive. I liked Gommels. But my DA friend comments, “Gommels would be
very defense oriented; Alfaro has been a prosecutor and defense attorney.” That
stereotype is there for a reason. Since
339th
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: Mary McFaden and Antonio
Benavides. McFaden has 14 years of experience as a prosecutor. She gets
endorsements from all on the matrix who have endorsed, plus my prosecutor
friend. I’ve met her at our Tea Party. Benavides’s endorsement page shows only
the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston, which mainly endorses
Democrats. I’ll be voting for Mary McFaden.
County Civil Court at
Law No. 1 Judge (unexpired term) has two candidates: Clyde Raymond Leuchtag
and Gloria Cantu Minnick. Leuchtag is the appointed incumbent. The controversy
in this race surrounds Minnick, who is running as a Republican while her
husband, F. Richard Leach, is running for another position as a Democrat. She
answered questions about this at our Tea Party, but not convincing us that she’s
a conservative at her core. Leuchtag’s experience is good. He seems to
be doing a good job. There’s no reason not to keep him there. I’m going with
the entire matrix of endorsements, and the recommendations of my friends, and
going with Clyde Leuchtag.
Propositions
There are four propositions on the ballot. Propositions on a primary ballot are recommendations; they do not have the force of law if approved.
Proposition 1 concerns
replacing the property tax system with a non-income-tax alternative (such as
higher sales tax). Since property tax pays for local services, such as fire and
police protection, and schools and local roads, it makes sense that property
owners contribute. The alternatives are subject to changes to unbelievably
high, bad for business, sales taxes, which we don’t want. So I’m voting NO.
Proposition 2
says we will comply with federal immigration laws—and not allow sanctuary
cities. Cities that defy the law subject themselves to penalizing loss of state
funds. This should be a given. The Harris County GOP recently supported this
proposition. I’m voting YES.
Proposition 3
prohibits governmental entities from collecting dues for labor unions through
deductions from public employee paychecks. I’m not a big union supporter in
general. I’m especially not big on labor unions for public employees. That
means that, from the wages we taxpayers pay them, the union confiscates a
portion and uses it as it sees fit, regardless of how that goes against the
taxpayer or the public employee. That should be stopped. I’m voting YES.
Proposition 4
says Texas should strongly assert 10th Amendment Rights; i.e., “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.”
Governor Abbott fought for this as Attorney General. We need more assertion of
our rights, as the federal government continues usurping our rights. So, while
this doesn’t change any law, it does express our encouragement for our leaders
to go forward asserting Texas’s sovereignty. I’m voting YES.
The primary election is underway. Here in Texas, while
voting day comes up Tuesday, March 1st, early voting began Tuesday
and runs through February 26th. So I’m getting ready to vote next
week, and sharing my decisions.
I expect we’ll do this in two posts: one for national,
Texas, and Harris County races, and another for Texas and county judicial races.
I’ve gathered pamphlets, online info, endorsement lists from
friends and groups, and I’m using a handy matrix of endorsements put together
by Mark Ramsey, State Republican Executive Committeeman for Senate District 7
(my district), which he has been updating daily.
I won’t spend a lot of time here, because I’ve written my
opinion pretty clearly. [Read here, here, and here.] I endorse
Ted Cruz. If I can’t have my way, I could settle for Marco Rubio. There were
others in the race I could have settled for, but I don’t think Jeb Bush or John
Kasich qualify. I generally like Ben Carson as a citizen, but I don’t think he
has what it takes to be president. He is, however, better than many
alternatives.
I won’t vote for Donald Trump—even if he were to become the
nominee. I will not vote for the ruination of my country and the disposal of
our beloved Constitution. Every day his behavior convinces me more thoroughly
that he would be disastrous with power at his disposal.
Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton is even
conceivable as a president of this country. They would also be permanently
disastrous to our country. They are so bad that people would be tempted to vote
for whoever is running against them. But I can’t see that Trump would prevent
the damage they would do; he might even do damage they haven’t thought of.
It would be awkward (understatement) to be a Republican
Precinct Chair who refuses to vote for the nominee; I hope the party does not
put me in that situation. I trust Ted Cruz will win handily in Texas, which is
a winner-take-all-delegates state. We’re doing our part. But we depend on voters
in other states to be wise as well.
US Representatives
My representative, Ted
Poe, District 2, is unopposed. I support him.
I’ve been interested in a couple of nearby races. John
Culberson, District 7, used to be my
representative, until redistricting a few years ago. He hasn’t faced a primary
in a while. This year he has two opponents: Maria Espinoza and James Lloyd. I’ve met them both at local Tea
Party meetings. Both are impressive.
I was surprised at the urgency to run against Culberson,
because he seemed conservative to me when I voted for him. I asked James Lloyd
about that: Was I wrong about him? Has he changed? Or has our idea of what is
conservative changed? He said he thought Culberson had changed. He had been
conservative in the beginning. But he hasn’t faced opposition in a while. And
sometimes, when you hear from business lobbyists all the time, and no one is
paying attention, it gets easy to just give in.
I haven’t followed closely enough to give specifics on
Culberson complaints, but his conservative ratings have dropped of late. When I
heard from Lloyd, I was impressed with his experience at a young age. He was
valedictorian at Rice Law School—and came out still conservative. Like Ted Cruz
at Harvard. He also has experience in Washington working against terrorism.
He’s young, but very impressive. I’d be happy to vote for him.
Looking at endorsements from various groups, Lloyd is
endorsed by The Conservative View, Terry Lowry’s The Link Letter, Mark Ramsay
SREC SD 7 Committeeman, and Gary Pollard’s Texas Conservative Review. Of those,
Ramsey has the most sway with me. Espinoza doesn’t receive any of these club/group
endorsement.
I think Culberson will probably win; incumbency carries a
lot of weight. But the challenges might wake him to the need to respond to his
conservative constituency.
When our elected officials remember that conservative
principles lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, we back them up.
In the meantime, I hope we see more of Maria Espinoza and
James Lloyd in the future.
Another contested race is Kevin Brady, District 8. I knew someone who ran against him in the primary a few
years ago. People in his districts have similar feelings as Culberson’s
constituents. He used to be conservative; what happened? His opponent is Steve
Toth, who gets endorsements from Mark Ramsey, Terry Lowry The Link Letter, and
Texas Patriots PAC. In the meantime, Brady has been hitting the airwaves with
reminders of every conservative thing he’s ever done—same with Culberson. Maybe
this challenge will help him to actually be
more conservative.
Texas Representative
My representative, Duane
Bohac, House District 138, is running unopposed. I have found him
responsive and reliably conservative so far.
There are a couple of nearby races. The one getting the most
attention is House District 150.
Debbie Riddle has represented that district for fourteen years now. We cheered
her on as a conservative. But something has turned lately. She isn’t my rep, so
I haven’t looked too hard at the specifics, but the main concerns are that she
failed to vote for preventing Sharia law from having a place in Texas courts,
and she supports House Speaker Joe Strauss, whom we all know is conservative
only when forced. Also, some think she worked against Right to Life issues.
There are a total of four on the ballot, but the main
challenger is Valoree Swanson, who
recently served as SREC SD 7 Committeewoman, and has worked for conservative
causes for a long time. She gets endorsements from Steve Hotze’s Conservative
Republicans of Harris County, The Conservative View, CCHC PAC [Conservative
Coalition of Harris County—has weight with me because I know several of them
from my tea party; this is an unpaid group of volunteers who research and
interview candidates and express their opinions by secret ballot], Kingwood Tea
Party, Mark Ramsey, Texas Right to Life, Empower Texans, Texas Patriots PAC,
and Conservative Club of Houston. Debbie Riddle gets Pollard’s Conservative
Review and Houston Realty Business Coalition.
It’s hard to take out an incumbent, but I think Valoree
Swanson has a good chance of winning this one. I would vote for her, if I were
in her district.
House District 128 is open, with the retirement of Allen
Fletcher. Tom Oliverson and Kay Smith are running. Oliverson gets endorsements
across the board on my list of groups. CCHC gives him a 67% support, which is
less than an endorsement. Kay Smith gets 33%. She is a longtime active member
of our local Tea Party, former member of the county school board, and energetic activist. I don’t know Oliverson, so I was surprised at how that
race is going. I suggest looking at both of them and making an informed
decision: Oliverson’s website. Smith’s website.
Texas Railroad
Commissioner
The Texas Railroad Commission is a three-person regulatory
committee over energy, which in Texas is mainly oil and gas. There is one place
on the ballot this year, with seven Republicans running (with some added
confusion, because Lance Christian and Wayne Christian have the same last
name).
This full list, in alphabetical order is: Lance Christian,
Wayne Christian, Gary Gates, Doug Jeffrey, Weston Martinez, John Greytok, and
Ron Hale.
Ron Hale attended our tea party back in November, which
seems forever ago. My notes aren’t very revealing. Two years ago I was leaning
toward Wayne Christian for Railroad Commissioner, and I know people who still
support him. But the majority of recommendations I typically turn to support
Weston Martinez. I’ve looked at his website, and he seems easy to support. The CCHC
PAC supports Martinez with 55%, not an endorsement, and give Wayne Christian
36%. Another 9% go to John Greytok. The magazine slates—Hotze’s Conservative
Republicans of HC, Terry Lowry’s The Link Letter, and Polland’s Conservative
Review all support Gary Gates, but that doesn’t persuade me without anyone I
personally know supporting him.
At this point I’m leaning toward Weston Martinez, subject to more information by the time I vote
next week.
Harris County Sheriff
Harris County, where Houston is located, is one of the
largest law enforcement jurisdictions in the country—the third largest
sheriff’s office. The county is almost exactly 50% Democrat, 50% Republican.
The previous sheriff, Adrian Garcia, resigned in 2015 to run for mayor (he did not
win). The County Commissioners appointed Ron Hickman, who had been Precinct 4
Constable prior to the appointment. He is now running, and his main opponent is
Carl Pittman, who ran for sheriff in 2012.
Both talked at a recent Cypress Tea Party meeting. Carl Pittman went first. I liked him last time he ran,
but he wasn’t my final pick (my pick didn’t win in November either). He has
been here, supporting tea party ideas, with his big smile and healthy
handshake. I wanted to be able to vote for him this time. He talked about the
need for better technology, and better ways for law enforcement to work across
jurisdictions (the five constable precincts, and various incorporated cities).
He seemed convincing.
Then Ron Hickman spoke. He’s been working in the job for
about nine months already. He was appointed, so we don’t have to think of that
as an incumbent position. But he has a pretty long record of incorporating
technology. As Precinct 4 Constable, he instituted laptops in patrol cars, and
paperless warrants. It looks like he’s already doing the things that Pittman
says need to be done.
Pittman is getting big help from Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sheriff Richard Mack, both big names, but both from somewhere else. There are
accusations going both ways in this campaign. I don’t like to see that, and I
pretty much tune it out. It’s unpleasantness that I hope will stop filling my
email inbox very soon.
I’m still trying to get an inside view from a local
sheriff’s deputy. But, looking at the various groups, but everyone across the
board has endorsed Ron Hickman, including 100% endorsement from CCHC, and also
Mark Ramsey. I have individual friends going with Carl Pittman. Either one I
believe would be better than their predecessor, Adrian Garcia. But right now
I’m leaning toward Ron Hickman.
Harris County Tax
Assessor/Collector
Mike Sullivan is the incumbent. Don Sumners [I didn’t find a website for his campaign] was the assessor before losing to Sullivan
several years ago. Don Sumners claims to be a watchdog for the taxpayer. But
Paul Bettencourt, now our Texas Senator for District 7, who was truly a
watchdog for the taxpayer when he held the Tax Asssessor position, and was all
about paying less and paying with ease, is supporting Mike Sullivan. In fact,
Sullivan is getting endorsements across the board. The CCHC PAC is supporting
him with only 60%, which isn’t quite an endorsement. Still, if all of these
people are satisfied, I’m not sure I can see a good enough reason to replace
him with a 76-year-old who held the job previously. So, I’m going with Mike Sullivan.
Harris County
Republican Chair
We elected Paul
Simpson just two years ago. He’s done a lot to better communications,
technology, and outreach. He has two challengers, but I’m willing to let him
keep working.
We’ll look at Texas Supreme Court and Appeals Court in the
next post, along with county judicial races, and anything else we haven't yet covered.
It’s President’s Day, so I thought I’d share a few favorite
quotes from the greats: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I’ve done that
in past years, however [here and here]. And, while they’re worth repeating
every Presidents’ Day, with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia this past
weekend, I’m changing plans and quoting him instead.
He was quotable in interviews and speeches, and maybe
regular life. But many of his memorable words come from SCOTUS decisions,
particular his dissents. Here are a few.
In reference to the bad decision on King v. Burwell, June
2015, which upheld the Obamacare question concerning state exchanges:
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange
established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite
absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so….
This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys
insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You
would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need
for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money
under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange
established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a
State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange
established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through
such an Exchange get no money under §36B….
If the subsidy would be given for any exchange, then it would
be odd to keep referring to the subsidy coming in relation to a state exchange
under §36B. There are places in the vast law, cited by Justice Scalia, that
refer to both the state exchanges and those provided by the secretary of HHS,
and sometimes together those are referred to as “exchanges,” but never in
relation to §36B (the subsidy, dealing with the IRS). Every time the subsidy is
referred to, the full phrase includes “state exchange” and the reference to the
part of the law. Not just a time or two, but I believe it was seven times.
That’s not an accident; it’s clearly to delineate when such a subsidy can be
given.
Here is one of the more important lines:
Words
no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State
is “established by the
State.”
There’s more:
Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show
that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal
Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as
“inartful drafting.” This Court, however, has no free-floating power “to rescue
Congress from its drafting errors.”
And,
They
made Congress, not this Court, responsible for
both making laws and
mending them.
And this memorable line:
We should start
calling this law SCOTUScare.
And this:
This Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be
remembered through the years…. And the cases will publish forever the
discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws
over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its
favorites.
Justice Scalia speaks at Roger Williams University
law school; image from here
I came across this next quote in a PJMedia piece today. It concerns a 1996 free-speech decision, which I believe was to overturn a
ban on internet pornography. Scalia wrote in his dissent:
The
court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case,
it
is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.
Justice Scalia had plenty to say following the Court’s
invention of a right for same-sex couples to marry each other, in his Obergefell
v. Hodges dissent:
So it is not of special importance to
me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however,
who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of
320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the
Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and
the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to
create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.
This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine,
always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the
People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence
and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
And further
in:
When the Fourteenth Amendment was
ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no
one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When
it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as
“due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that
the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a
practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after
ratification.
Followed by:
Since there is no doubt whatever that
the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex
couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue. But
the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.
Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the
opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People
ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in
its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.
And to put a finer point on it:
A system of government
that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does
not deserve to be called a democracy.
Justice Scalia was nominated by President Reagan in 1986. He
was completing his 29th session on the Supreme Court this year. I’ve
mainly quoted from a couple of recent opinions. There should be books—and probably
are or will be—documenting his opinions. And probably more books retelling his
wit and wisdom. Those of us who love our country and our Constitution feel a
bit bereft right now. We needed him on the Court.
As for replacement, the speculation is just beginning. There
is plenty of precedent to avoid seating a justice in the last lame-duck year of
a presidency. Replacement this far into the term—near the time when opinions
are beginning to be written, and most briefs read and considered—is too late for a new justice
to come up to speed. Cases resulting in a 4-4 ruling can be reheard in the next
term. It is better to have the Court down a number than to have cases badly settled by an unprepared
guess.
The next term begins again in the fall, just before the
election. There is no hurry from either party to grant the power to name a new
justice to an outgoing president, instead of the one to be sworn in in January.
A new president can be ready to name a replacement immediately, allowing
maximum time for serving in the coming term.
To those of us who valued Scalia’s adherence to the
Constitution, it is imperative that we have a justice who reads, understands,
and abides by the law, rather than wavering according to the whims of the time.
Postponing the appointment gives us reason to hope. But it
depends on the Senate standing firm. Scary thought. But that is what we must
pray for. That, and a next president who knows what to look for in a justice.
It goes by other names: liberalism,
progressivism, communism. There may be some slight flavor differences among
these, paid attention to by those who prefer a certain appellation over another.
But in Spherical Model terms, they are all southern hemisphere: some far away
authority decides how to spend the wealth created by individuals, and may
decide what work individuals may do. In some varieties (USSR Communism, for
example) private ownership and private means of production (business ownership)
are eliminated.
The Soviet Union fell about 2 ½ decades ago. That means that
young people have grown up unaware of what that enemy of the United States (and
enemy of freedom around the globe) meant. Now, here we are with a democrat party
choosing a nominee who will be either an Alinskyite covert socialist calling
herself a progressive or a curmudgeonly old guy who boldly labels himself a
socialist. And they are treated by media as if they are mainstream.
So maybe we need a lesson. Let’s be clear: socialism is
incompatible with freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Socialism will—it
always has and always must—lead to tyranny, poverty, and savagery.
And then this hypothetical conversation happens.
“No, no,” you say; “We just want to even things out, so the
system is fair for everyone.”
You want freedom, you say, equality before the law?
“Well, but the way things are, there are people who game the
system, and the little guy gets screwed. That’s why there’s such an income gap.”
And by income gap, you mean that’s a bad thing, that people
should have the same amount of money?
“Yes, pretty much. The rich are only rich because they’ve
exploited other people.”
And poor people are only poor because…?
“Because they haven’t had the same opportunities. Everybody
should get the same education advantages, and good job opportunities, and
health care so they don’t get wiped out by some accident or illness.”
OK, so, no poor people are poor because they do less valuable
work than people who make more money?
“Are you trying to blame the poor?”
No, I’m just asking. So, what if you’re someone with a
valuable skill, and you think up something really brilliant that everyone
wants. Should you be allowed to profit from it, or share any profits equally
with everyone else who didn’t think it up?
“You’re just not getting it.”
No, I’m not. Because I’m aware of how much misery a
controlled economy has caused in the world.
“That’s just because it wasn’t done right. We would do it
right.”
And how is it you can be sure of that?
“We just would. We’re smarter.”
Umm.
Among the current Berners (Bernie Sanders fans), they fail
to think of forced labor camps, rationing toilet paper (happening in Venezuela
currently), the millions starved to death, not to mention the millions killed
outright for being unwilling to submit, or trying to escape. No, they think
about northern European socialist countries, like Sweden or Denmark, which they
think is a utopia we should emulate.
They seem unware that those countries are becoming less
controlling—because they have run out of money. As Britain’s Margaret Thatcher
accurately said, while opposing socialist in her own country, “The problem with
socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
And how do you make money? Or build wealth? You create
something of value beyond what is necessary for survival. Someone needs to do
the wealth building, the work.
I have noticed a lot of well-meaning Americans praising
Denmark for our happiness and our welfare system. We’re praised for our free
education, free healthcare, free childcare, short workweek and all the other
things that the goodness-industry is proclaiming to define us Danes.
Then he goes on to talk about what “free” means:
“Child- and healthcare is free and students are paid to study
in Denmark!” That’s a line I’ve heard a lot. It’s a truth that needs a lot of
modification. A lot!
If by ‘free’ you mean ‘paid for by someone else’ you are
right in the assumption that healthcare, childcare and education are almost
free of charge.
He spends the rest of the article talking about where the
money comes from.
Denmark, he points out, built up original wealth from Viking
plunder and slavery. So they had a wealth base to draw on. And the rest of the “free”
stuff comes from taxes. It’s not a simple thing to just say everyone pays X% in
taxes. It depends on a lot of variables. But the writer takes us through a basic
example of an ordinary working class Dane who makes $25,000 DKK a month (about
$4,000, which would be $48,000/year).
Income tax is deducted automatically, before you see your
money (like our withholding). These include 8% Arbejdsmarkedsbidrag, loosely meaning “labor market.” You pay this
amount because you’re in the labor market. That’s 2,000 DKK.
Then subtract bundfradrag,
or “bottom deduction.” This is, if I’m understanding, a tax on the part of your
income that isn’t taxed. This differs year to year, but in 2015 was 41,400,
which is 3,433 monthly. You subtract this from the 23,000 DKK you have left to
spend in the month, which is 19,567 DKK.
Now come the Communeskat,
or county tax. Counties differ, but the average is 24.9%. Which means you take
away 4,872.18 from 19,567, leaving you 14,694.81 DKK.
Then comes Topskat,
or “top tax bracket.” This is on over 37,000 DKK per month, or an additional
15% on anything over 449,100 DKK per year. Our example doesn’t have to subtract
this, since the gross is 25,000 DKK per month.
Next comes the Sundhedsskat,
or “health tax.” It changes annually, but in 2015 was 4%. That’s 782.68 in our
example, leaving 13,784.32 DKK.
That’s the total of the “income tax,” that is deducted
before you see your money. Our example paid 11,215.68, or about 44%.
Then come the many other taxes from various places.
Every time you pay a bill, you pay the government 25%. That
means, if you buy something for 100 DKK, it will cost you 125 DKK, for the
government to allow you to make the transaction. But you don’t really notice,
because the price would read 125, with the tax already included, and the vendor
collects and pays the tax, paying quarterly.
In essence, sales taxes, direct and indirect, mean you pay
25% of your remaining income. That’s 3,446.08 in our example, leaving 10,338.24.
Utilities have an additional Afgift, or tax. The writer’s recent 3-month electric bill was
994.64 DKK. Of that bill, 111.96 was what the electric company charges for 358
kilowatt/hours, and 30 DKK for membership (membership?), and a sales tax of
176.33 DKK. There are sales taxes involved to make the exchange, and additional
taxes for use of the state-owned network, which I think is the electrical grid.
In the end, out of 994.64, 853.58 DKK goes to the government—divided by 3 for
284.53 per month.
We’ll subtract that, leaving us with 10,053.71 DKK.
If you buy a TV, phone, computer, or radio, you can do so—with
the usual 20% tax. (The writer sometimes says 20% sales tax, and sometimes 25%,
so I’m confused, and that will mess us our numbers. But we’ll plow ahead and
try to get an estimate anyway.) But if you own a device that can access some
kind of transmission, you pay a Licens,
or license to use Dansmarks Radio, the government-controlled media. If you own
a device and don’t use it, someone will come to your door and force you to
register the device. The license is 205 DKK per month. (It’s unclear to me
whether that’s an additional 205 DKK per device, or a single license for all
devices in the household.)
The writer refuses to own anything that needs licensing; he
uses his mother’s computer and his friend’s phone. But for our purposes, let’s
say you pay the license fee. That leaves you 9,848.71 DKK.
That is 39.39% of your original. You have paid 60.61% of
your income. If you were wealthier, you would add 15% earlier in the process.
Not far off from what Bernie Sanders thinks those terrible rich people ought to
be paying here. But note that in Denmark everybody pays, no matter how little
they make.
Socialism isn’t about getting free stuff; it’s about
spending 60% or more of your income on
those “free” things, without market choice. Everyone pays it. There’s no
getting away from it. If you’re healthy and would rather pay for minimal health
care, so you can save up for a down payment on a house, you don’t get that
choice. If you want faster internet or more media options than the single media
company offers, you don’t get that choice.
But for all the lack of choice, you work until mid-July or
later for the government and can only use what you make the rest of the year to
support your food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment
choices.
Meanwhile, the government is telling you how happy you must
be, because of the good way the government takes care of you.
That’s the utopia. It’s also the country where Islamists
went on a rampage because someone drew some cartoons they didn’t like.
Sweden has similar stories, as I wrote about in January. The solution seems to be to turn
away from overtaxing and turn toward free market. Otherwise these utopian
economies will collapse.
The real way to avoid tyranny, corruption, unfairness, and
other aspects of oppression is to go in the exact opposite direction from
socialism. Like we have in our US Constitution, guaranteed God-given rights, with
free market economics, among a righteous people that take care of each other,
rather than depending on government to do what charity should.
I had planned to write this piece on socialism for a couple
of weeks. But this morning I found there are plenty of others who think it’s
time we did some informing on the subject. One, linked today by Glenn Beck, is
this 37-year-old video of economist Milton Friedman telling TV host Phil
Donohue the difference between socialism and capitalism in under three minutes:
It includes this key point:
In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the
kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded
history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.
If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s
exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of
history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far
discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle
to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Another piece that showed up today is this post by United Families International, giving a primer on the difference
between socialism and capitalism. It offers this summary:
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twenty-first century. While
it promises prosperity, equality, and security, it delivers poverty, misery,
and tyranny. Equality is achieved only in the sense that everyone shares equal
misery.
Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with
fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries
around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that
ignores incentives.
All I can do here is skim the surface of the definitions. You
might also read this post and this post, and it’s second part.
The deceived young people seem unaware that voting for
socialism is voting to place yourself under tyranny of elected elites and their
appointed bureaucrats. They need to be informed. Now. While there is time.
There’s growing data showing the failure of the so-called
successes in northern Europe. There are books full of details about socialism. If
you haven’t read Animal Farm since
you were assigned it in school, it might be time for a reread, now that you’re
old enough to understand it. And pass it along to someone who hasn’t read it
yet.
No one should be allowed to vote for a socialist if they’re
still so uninformed that they think it’s all about being social and about
getting free stuff. The rest of us don't deserve to suffer because of their ignorance.
