The Tax Day Flood

It’s tax filing deadline day—an extension from the usual April 15^th. We’re having a flood here in Houston, from storms all night long. Several hours during the night we got 2-3 inches of rain per hour. In our neighborhood we got 15.6 inches overnight, double what we got during Tropical Storm Allison. The nearby bayou went over its banks; it’s a 500-year flood level. Our neighborhood, relatively new, is built up several feet about street level, so we’re safe. But a number of neighbors and people we know from church have some flooding. And the main street we have to take to get out of the neighborhood has flooded.

Houston's Tax Day Flood
photo from Houston Chronicle reader, here

This afternoon we’re having a bit of a reprieve between storms that are predicted throughout the week. That should give the water a chance to flow into the reservoirs down the road. We’re the bayou city for a reason; bayous (i.e., drainage ditches) are in and around every neighborhood. Because heavy rains happen here. So we’ve planned for them. And, when whatever we do is not enough and flooding happens, we dig in and help each other out.

There ought to be some metaphor in here about taxes. One might be that we’ve been suffering something of an economic catastrophe since around late 2008—that’s eight years. At last there are signs of the bad stuff letting up in the not-too-distant future.

I’m looking at the possibility that we could get lower taxes, simpler taxes, higher growth—all the things that happen when the government gets out of the way. These things might just happen, if we get the Ted Cruz tax plan.

It’s a simple plan. He put out an ad this past week, explaining it in one minute:

You can read the summary on his website. 

On Friday Ted Cruz appeared on CNBC’s Squawkbox, where he talked about his tax plan with Joe Scarborough and team. It was a good opportunity to hear what the outcome for the economy will be of this simple plan. So I’m sharing a few portions of it.

Joe Scarborough starts the conversation asking about economic growth.

Ted Cruz: Growth is foundational. My number one priority is growth. Every other problem we’ve got, whether it’s unemployment, the debt, the deficit. Whether it is strengthening and preserving social security and Medicare, or whether it is rebuilding our military and keeping us safe—you’ve got to have growth to make it work. And we have been trapped in stagnation for the seven years. And if we don’t turn that around, nothing else gets fixed….

Historically, since WWII, our country has grown an average of 3% per year. And yet from 2008 to today it’s averaged only 1.2% a year. If we stay at… this level of growth, these problems are not solvable….

My economic agenda is focused very directly on growth, because if you get back to historic levels, 3, 4, 5% growth, suddenly the federal government numbers turn around dramatically….

Joe S is concerned about what looks like a global problem and asks about that. Ted Cruz responds with examples from history, from Coolidge, to JFK, to Reagan, where the right policies turned things around.

TC: Taxation reform and regulatory reform are the two most potent levers that the government has. In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy did the same thing. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan did the same thing. We have three periods in the past century, the 20s, the 60s, and the 80s, and in every one when we passed tax reform and regulatory reform, when we reduce the burdens of government on small businesses—and small businesses are critical; they’re the job creators; they’re the innovators; they’re the catalysts—the result has been record-shattering growth. We just need to do what works.

At 13 minutes in, Ted Cruz gets to describe the actual tax plan.

TC: My tax plan is simple. It is a simple flat tax. For a typical family of four, for the first $36,000 you earn, you pay nothing. Zero income tax. Zero payroll tax. Nothing. Above $36,000, each marginal dollar you pay a simple flat tax of 10%.… Everyone pays the exact same….

Another difference, by the way, no longer do you have any differential rates between ordinary income and dividends or cap gains…. Everything’s 10%, which means people actually allocate capital based on where it’s efficient, rather than on what the tax laws say, because the tax laws are neutral to everything.

And then, on the business side, we abolish the corporate income tax. As you know we have the most punitive corporate income tax of any developed country in the world. We abolish the Obamacare taxes. We abolish the payroll taxes, which are the single biggest tax most working Americans pay. And we abolish the death tax, which is a tremendously unfair and punitive tax on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses. And we replace all of those with a simple 16% business flat tax.

And the effect is an incredible catalyst for job creation and wages going up, and bringing jobs back to America. That’s my priority: high-priced jobs coming back to America, wages going up for everyone.

When government people score a plan, they give a number on what it will cost. But they assume the tax cut will do nothing but reduce government revenue. That is called static scoring. Ted Cruz gets to talk about that, and offers a more likely dynamic scoring scenario.        

                                                                                                                             

TC: I suspected you might say that, so I actually printed out a comparison of tax plans that was done by the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation is a nonprofit…. It is nonpartisan, and it scores everybody’s plan. If you look at it the way they score it, in terms of the cost—Now, the static cost is $3.6 trillion; that’s a lot of money. But scoring it static is assuming that cutting taxes has no impact on the economy—that doesn’t make any sense. I mean, that is an Alice-in-Wonderland scoring.

If you score it with dynamic scoring, which is, you take into effect what is going to happen when you cut taxes, then the total cost of this plan is $768 billion. It’s less than a trillion. If you contrast that, for example, to Donald Trump’s plan, Donald’s plan costs over $10 trillion. So mine is less than a trillion…. And the difference is, even though Donald’s is more than ten times as expensive as mine is, my tax plan produces more economic growth. 4.9 million new jobs, coming from this capital investment, increases 44%.

One of the big reasons is that any business, when you invest in capital, it’s immediately deductible. No longer do you have complicated depreciation tables. None of that matters. If you make a capital expenditure, you immediately expense it. That is a powerful catalyst for growth.

And then, the most exciting thing about it is just the impact on after-tax wages, take-home pay. Every income group, from the very poorest to the very richest sees a double-digit in after-tax pay. The average family in America under the Cruz simple flat tax will take home $7600 dollars more. Seven thousand six hundred dollars. That’s real money that makes a difference for someone struggling to make ends meet

Around 34 minutes into the conversation, Joe Scarborough brings in economist Art Laffer. Laffer, best known for the Laffer Curve, advised Reagan back in the day, and has helped Cruz in developing his plan. He is asked whether he can verify this “dynamic scoring.”

Art Laffer: Of course dynamic scoring’s the right way to do it, Joe…. I did watch the other segment. I thought Ted did a great job of explaining exactly how it works and what the dynamics of it would be—except that I think he underestimated the dynamics that will occur.

If you look at his tax plan, it makes Reagan’s tax plan look weak, in the 1980s. I would expect to see a greater growth rate, not only because Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter, but because this tax plan is even better than Reagan’s. It’s would take the top rate down to 16% on businesses and 10% on individuals. And I think you’ll get growth rates higher than Reagan’s, which were enormous, Joe. You’ve got 6, 7, 8% real growth annualized on a quarterly basis in the years ‘83, ‘84. And in a number of the quarters you’ll get more than that. Our economy is relatively much worse off than it was even under Jimmy Carter.

There’s some discussion about the excuses, relating to the Fed, about why this recession is supposedly different from all others, and then Ted Cruz is brought back in.

TC: I agree with Art that the numbers that were estimated, if anything they’re underselling the GDP impact. My object is a minimum of 5% GDP growth. And I would note JFK, when he campaigned, he campaigned promising 5% GDP growth, and he ended up producing 5% GDP growth. 

AL: And the tax revenues were much higher too. He went into surplus because of economic growth.

TC: That is exactly right. And the wealthy ended up paying more. When you cut the tax rates, the wealthy paid a higher percentage of taxes.

Art, tell us, what would the impact be on the economy? What would the impact be on working men and women, if we had four years or eight years of 5% GDP growth, instead of the stagnant 1 and 2% we’ve got right now?

AL: Well, the impact would be huge. I mean, the biggest driver of tax revenues, Ted, is GDP growth.

But what very few people have talked about on your plan, and, if I may, is the revenue impact on cities, counties, local districts, and state budgets would be enormous as well. And no one’s even looking at that.

The impact on income redistribution would be also huge. I mean, John F. Kennedy put it so beautifully—you referred to Kennedy, and he was my hero—John F. Kennedy said the best form of welfare is still a good high paying job. And creating those jobs will reduce inequality dramatically. And that will lead to more prosperity everywhere.

So you’re going to have much higher revenue impact. I think you’re going to get even higher growth rates than 5%. And you’re going to reduce inequality. What’s not to love in this plan?

Indeed. What’s not to love?

But would those good outcomes really happen? I think they would. I remember the Reagan years, which is helpful. But I think hearing from business people is helpful. I came across a five-minute video by businessman/speaker Ryan Moran, in which he talks about the so-called “fair share” he has to pay. He holds up a check for $170,000 he’s paying in taxes. This is not his tax bill; he paid the estimated tax in December. This is just the overage, by which he was off. He explains a bit about what he’s paying. And then he talks about what he could do with that money.

Now what could a businessperson do with $170,000? You know what I would like to do? Hire more people. I’d love to hire three highly paid people at $55,000, or five people at $35,000. But I can’t. ‘Cause it’s going to the government…. I’d love to put it back into a business, or back into people….

So the government can’t just create things out of thin air. It has to take—it has to take— from what would be productive: hiring people, investing into more products and services, creating better experiences for customers, putting into a college fund for my ten-month-old daughter. Any of that would be a better use.

But, no. People got to pay their “fair share.”

It’s not just speculation. People really do make better use of their money than government does.

I like that a 10% flat tax is pretty similar to what God does, with tithing. Let’s limit what government takes from us, and limit what government does with the tax money it gets—to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. 

Let the government-caused catastrophes end. And then watch us thrive.

Haters

I came across this post a few days ago on Facebook:

When a person chooses hate, it is difficult to turn around and choose not to hate. Hate is not always the label they would choose for the emotion they put out. Usually, it is more as if they feel that they are right, no matter what.

OK. Basically I agree with that. But this particular statement is more than just a bit ironic. Here’s some background.

Several months ago, ahead of the November election, I posted my ballot recommendations, as I usually do. Unlike most of my posts, these occasional ones are meant for local/state friends that are looking at the same ballot I am and want more information before they vote. In this post I included a short section about the Houston mayoral race. I’m just outside the city of Houston, so I didn’t delve into the race, but I did point out some basic information:

 photo from David Bro/Zuma Press/Newscom,found here

The mayor, as well as city council races are non-partisan. That is, the candidates don’t run from a party, with a primary putting up a chosen candidate. The candidates themselves, however, generally have a strong party affiliation. And Houston hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1938[i]….

Then we got Mayor Anise Parker, who ran as a businesswoman. She sounded sensible. You’re supposed to vote for the best person. I don’t vote in Houston city elections, but she seemed reasonable, and I wasn’t against her. As soon as she was elected, the news announced how remarkable it was that a lesbian had been elected.

During her campaign her sexual orientation had not been an issue. Suddenly it was. And she conducted her administration as an activist for homosexuality. HERO (the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), Prop 1 on the city ballot, is an example—which you must vote AGAINST if you're in Houston; it adds no equal rights protections to anyone, but does take away the right to believe women and children are put at risk if men are allowed in their bathrooms. If you followed that issue, you know Mayor Parker threw out tens of thousands of signatures intended to put it on the ballot, rather than just going along with her. And she subpoenaed pastors for their sermons and communications to see if they said anything about LGBT issues. She was legally slapped down for that.

So now, maybe it’s time to forget about who appears to be the best person, cross off everyone that is a Democrat, a liberal, or a progressive (or any other code word). And from whomever is left, find the best conservative and vote for that person.

That commentary was a trigger. Was I wrong to say we shouldn’t vote for that sort of leadership? The writer of the anti-hate words I quoted above thinks so. Disapproval came as a late-night Facebook attack, even though he had known me since my teenage years—and had not that long ago told me I was one of the kindest, sweetest people he remembered from high school. Suddenly I was one of the most hateful people he’d ever encountered. “So much hate,” and “homophobia,” and “How is this not defending hate?”

What had I done to deserve that epithet? Only write the above portion of a story on local politics—which I had posted where he could go read them, but I had not invited him to do so.

Family and friends messaged me and said to block the jerk (worse word was used). I disengaged, went to bed, and didn’t block him until I saw that he had gone on through hours of the night, and still tried to bait me the afternoon of the next day.

Because I’m hateful? For not approving of the former mayor of Houston’s illegal attack on local churches and anyone who disagreed with her?

A reasonable person would see that, in actual fact, I didn’t say anything anti-gay or hateful; I noted that the former mayor was elected even though she was a lesbian, because people didn’t care about that if she was going to be a good mayor. But she wasn’t a good mayor. And she betrayed the people who voted for her by using her platform as mayor to favor a segment of the population and attacking people who disagreed.

Writers get this kind of attack. Why bother about this one? Only to illustrate about the definition of hate that is being forced on reasonable people. Truth and people who speak truth are attacked louder and louder as haters.

Matt Walsh summed up the situation earlier this week:

But it’s one thing to fail in your pursuit of holiness, and it’s another to call holiness ”hateful.” It’s one thing to sin, it’s another to say that sinning is not sinful. It’s one thing to disobey the Commandments, it’s another to categorically reject the authority of the Commandments. It’s one thing to crawl back to God and beg for forgiveness, it’s another to stand there and say you don’t need forgiveness because God was wrong when he called your sin a sin. It’s one thing to follow Christian teachings imperfectly, it’s another to loudly denounce them. It’s one thing to fall short of the faith, it’s another to change the faith to suit you.

He was speaking at Catholic University on religious liberty. One would think that would be a safe place to speak on such a topic. But, it’s a university, not the safest place for free speech these days, maybe especially religious free speech. Walsh talks about the Q&A afterward:

Nobody shouted or heckled during my speech, which was nice, but the Q&A afterwards was mostly dominated by one student after another fishing for applause by calmly explaining why I’m a mean, hateful bigot, and so forth. I argued with as many of them as I could before they kicked us out of the room, then I stood in the hallway and argued for another hour.

Most of the kids offended by my arguments and my very presence were upset that I don’t believe in “marriage equality.” Some said they agreed with me but believe my approach is hateful. The word hate was tossed around quite a bit. My words are hateful, my ideas are hateful, my beliefs are hateful. Everything is hateful. Except for a crowd of people pointing at me and calling me hateful. They’re not hateful, remember. Just me.

Yes, there’s the irony.

There’s been a lot of that hate word in the news lately. North Carolina’s HB2 bill was similar to Houston’s anti-HERO fight. The bill intended to keep things the way they had been since about the time public restrooms were invented, a month after the Charlotte City Council imposed transgendered bathrooms on people there.

In Washington State female victims of sexual abuse are speaking out against a transgender bathroom policy there. They’re getting called hateful, but the people who disregard their realistic fears are supposedly the caring, open-minded, tolerant ones.

Are their fears realistic? These incidents lead to a yes:

·         A sexual predator in Toronto was jailed after claiming to be “transgender” as a ruse to assault women in a shelter.

·         In southern California, a perpetrator dressed as a women, spent two hours in a women’s restroom to video women going to the bathroom before being caught.

·         A man who had victimized grade school girls was caught in a women’s changing room where girls were changing into swim suits. He was caught in similar acts two years later.

·         A man put on a bra and wig to spy on women in a community college women’s bathroom. This was not his first voyeurism incident.

·         A self-identified transgender boy dressed as a girl, and insisted on accommodations by the school district, including using the girls’ locker room.

·         A 24-year-old transgender male youth minister is guilty of dozens of counts of sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl.

·         A man was arrested for multiple counts of indecent exposure was dressed as a woman in the women’s section of a Walmart.

·         A prisoner guilty of second-degree murder and beating up women decided he was a woman during his 28-year sentence and has been paroled.

·         A 6’3” 280-lb. martial arts expert decided he was transgender. A woman questioned his presence in a women’s bathroom and he knocked out five of her teeth.

·         A man was caught twice on voyeurism charges in a women’s bathroom of a public library.

These last eight are among many more compiled on a 23-minute video. There are plenty of examples, not for the squeamish.

“Transgendered” individuals are an extremely small subset of society—an estimated 3 per 1000, while women who are victims of sexual predators in their lifetime are estimated to be about 20%, and those who feel uncomfortable when subjected to possible voyeurism is almost universal. We ought to be able to come up with an agreeable practice that doesn’t ignore the concerns of half of the population and those who care about them. I believe we had one until agenda-driven activists started imposing this unacceptable new LGBT “right.”

The American College of Pediatricians recently called it child abuse to submit children to gender reassignment, since 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty[ii]. Of adults who have gone through surgical and hormonal reassignment suffer 20 times greater rates of suicide than those who don’t undergo a chemical and/or surgical change.[iii]

It is possible, even probable, that “transgenderism” is more accurately a mental illness. It was put like this, by Michael Brown, in an “open letter to Bruce Springsteen,” who has decided to boycott North Carolina over the issue, while not worrying about much greater violence to LGBT people in other parts of the world:

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?...

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator?

I like his final question to Springsteen—about the irony:

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?

I suggest that the answer is a knee-jerk assumption. By definition, they believe anyone who disagrees with their currently trendy yet ironically illiberal political correctness couldn’t possibly have any motive for their beliefs except hatred and bigotry. And they hate those different believers for it; they will not tolerate opposing beliefs or the people who hold them.

I do not accept their definition of hate.

I can tell I’m not hating. I’m calm; I’m feeling compassion toward all sides. I’ve considered the arguments on all sides and come down where I think God is guiding me to believe, which happens to be also where the scientific evidence is leading.

I think my belief is more compassionate all around. And when I find old friends who believe otherwise, I don’t throw away years of positive interactions to call them hateful sinners. Only the real haters do that.

---

[i] This detail was in error. I had misread some information on Wikipedia. Later I learned that the last Republican mayor of Houston was James Joseph McConn, from 1978 to 1982. My basic point still holds; the city has rarely had a Republican (even a moderate Republican) mayor in its long history.

[ii] American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.

[iii] Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.

Spherical Model Quotes

The Political Sphere
of The Spherical Model

I’ve done posts in the past of quotes from various people that relate to the Spherical Model (for example, here, here, and here). And I’ve done posts collecting links to some of the “best of” the Spherical Model blog posts. But I haven’t done a post quoting from the Spherical Model website and blog. That’s what we’re doing today—quoting myself. I’m hoping this will encourage you to read more about the Spherical Model, an alternative to right and left in describing interrelating ideas from the political, economic, and social spheres.

From “Fact or Opinion,” March 12, 2015. The piece was about the distortion of the definitions of fact and opinion in a way that removes morality and makes truth harder to ascertain. This is the final summary:

Truth exists separate from us. Seeking truth is a work for a lifetime. It takes a good mind, and a good heart, and spiritual strength to know truth. Seeking God is more likely to lead to truth than leaving out the Omniscient One and going at it on our own.

From “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics,” December, December 10, 2015. This piece reviewed an interview with Thomas Sowell on Uncommon Knowledge, following Sowell’s book by the same title. I noticed connections with the Spherical Model idea of interrelationships of political freedom, economic prosperity, and civilization. This is one of the basic axioms of the Spherical Model and the role of government:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

From “Commerce and Philanthropy—Two Sides of the Same Coin,” November 9, 2015. The piece covered a Q&A with Steve Forbes at a Hillsdale College economic symposium. Forbes mentioned the importance, morally, of turning to the Constitution for economic thriving, which sounds like the Spherical Model, with the interrelating spheres. I followed with this:

The goals are freedom, which we get from abiding by the US Constitution; prosperity, which we get from free markets (not to be confused with crony capitalism); and civilization, which we get from a moral people living moral lives, which includes strong families to pass along the way to civilization.

From “What We Conserve,” October 1, 2015. In this piece, we go over the enumerated powers of the Constitution, based on God-given rights. Because this is the Spherical Model, we cover what we conserve in each of the spheres: political, economic, and social. So we’ll have a quote or two from each of those:

Political Sphere:

If we’re going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe on our God-given rights. So government has no business involving itself in what we believe or what we say, with the specific exceptions of when something we do infringes on the God-given rights of others. What we need is to conserve our Constitution, in its real form, not some penumbras invented by unelected judges.

Economic Sphere:

Every dollar government spends is a societal expense. Government can’t spend more money to help the economy. When we have downturns in the economy, and everyone says government has to do something—that something should be to get out of the way and let the recovery happen.

Charity isn’t a duty of government; charity isn’t even possible by government. Government charity is better labeled coercive taking of income from some to give to others—or theft. Charity includes various helps for the poor: welfare food and housing, health care, student grants, social security, and more.

Conservatives don’t mean for these helps to be eliminated. But in a civilized society, those in need receive help mainly locally, by those in contact with them, such as churches and local nonprofits, from those who freely give. Charity means love; it is entirely unrelated to forced income redistribution. If there is one thing conservatives need to speak more clearly on, it is this better way to help those in need. Our way is better for giver and receiver, and leads to greater prosperity, rather than more poverty at the cost of lost freedom.

Social Sphere:

Civilization requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture.

A conservative leader recognizes that religion is not just a tolerated quirk of some minority of the population; religion is an essential institution helping us understand what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are. The question about forcing Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby, or bakers, florists, and photographers to act against their conscience would disappear, if our leaders appreciated the religious view of family, life, property, and truth.

From “The Political World Is Round,” on The Spherical Model website, in the section “US Parties in Relation to Freedom Zone.” This was written, in its current form, in 2010. It’s probably more positive than the party is today:

The Democrats are a symbiotic mix of people demanding that government provide for their needs—health care, education, housing, redistribution of wealth, regulating use of resources, even making jobs: the demanding needy, we could call them—along with the elites who are willing to pander to the demanding needy in order to increase their personal power: the would-be dictators. When Republicans engage in the debate, they often try to deal with the demanding needy by saying, “We’ll give you those things too, but we’ll be more responsible about it and cost you less in taxes,” to which the reply is, “You hate children and old people; you’re trying to kill them!” and other absurdities. It’s not a reasonable debate approaching even the lowest borders of the freedom zone.

I don’t mean to imply that everyone in the Democratic Party is consciously socialist. Many simply focus on needs and wants as problems, with government as the only logical problem solver. Many on the would-be dictators’ side of the party, those in academia, media, entertainment, and other areas controlling wealth, are well-intentioned. They think of themselves as the fortunate (and often therefore guilty) elite who believe it’s their moral obligation to force society to provide for the needy—unwilling or unable to see the immorality in taking substance from one person for their own purposes—what we call theft when anybody but the government does it. One troubling thing about elites who seek power is that, when the people don’t elect them, they see that as just more evidence that the people aren’t capable of choosing what’s good for them, and so they see their power seeking as even more justified.

From “Free Enterprise vs. Controlled Economy,” on The Spherical Model website, in the section on “Capitalism.”

Capital in and of itself is simply never evil. Capital might be considered always good. It represents work above and beyond what is essential followed by careful use of it toward a good idea, resulting in even more surplus. Those who hate capitalism are those who don’t produce it. They don’t have either the discipline or the drive to produce more than is necessary, and then to find ways to have that wealth work for them. They are jealous of those who have produced capital and use it. They insist it’s unfair that some have advantages that they don’t.

If you’re interested in more collected words from The Spherical Model, try the links found in “Spherical Model Review,” December 31, 2015. 

Rebuilding after the Damage

Helping the neighbors after Hurricane Ike.
I told Mr. Spherical Model he ought to let younger, shorter
guys with better knees do this job.

Here in Houston we have the occasional life-altering disaster: hurricanes, floods, tornadoes. In our seventeen years here we’ve seen all of these, but so far have remained fairly safe. During Hurricane Ike, in 2008, we lost power for eight days, had to repair a ceiling and reroof the house. That was pretty minor. We had neighbors, at the end of the cul-de-sac, who got hit harder and had some major rebuilding to do. We, along with people from church, helped cover the holes in their roofs with tarps. And we shared a generator with the neighbors on either side. We kept busy; there was plenty to do.

I recently came across an article, “From the Ruins:Rebuilding Civilization,” by Anthony Esolen, which talks about rebuilding after disaster—and compares that to the rebuilding needed in today’s culture. Here is the paragraph that caught my attention:

Some of the young men from church
helping rebuild our neighbor's fence
after Hurricane Ike

What shall we do now? The answer is both daunting and liberating. We do everything.
 That doesn’t mean that I do everything, or that you do everything. Suppose you find yourself in a bombed out city. There are all kinds of things to do, and all of them have to be done. Some needs are more pressing than others, and some things can be done only after other things are in order. But everywhere you turn, there’s work to do. You have to find clean water. You have to find food. You have to tend to the wounded and bury the dead. You have to erect shelters. You have to see which of the few buildings left standing are actually safe. You have to demolish those that are ruined beyond repair. You have to organize work teams. Someone has to prepare the meals. Someone has to keep the children out of trouble. In such a situation, it’s almost absurd to ask whether it’s more important to build a latrine than to gather together some undamaged books. All of it has to be done. So you do what you can do—the work that is ready to your hand.

While I’m more familiar with natural disaster, the bombed-out city is maybe more apt, since the chaos of societal ruin that we face is man-caused.

Esolen suggests a list of things to do—in no particular order. Some require reading more than the enumerated item to understand what he means. But, take your pick of what you want to take on:

·         Build new schools, reform old schools, and abandon irreformable ones.

·         Restore your parish church and bring reverence back to the liturgy.

·         Acquaint yourself with the proper use of the zipper [i.e., remain sexually chaste, regardless of what others do].

·         Be social.

·         Read good books.

·         Recover the human things.

·         Pray like the pilgrim you are.

·         Whatever you do, do it as if everything depends on just that.

·         Begin.

I won’t quibble with any of his suggestions. But, since we look at what is Civilization, here at the Spherical Model, I thought I might add to his list.

Civilization requires certain things: a religious people, who value God, family, life, property rights, and truth. So, here are a few tasks to take on, under those headings or combinations thereof.

·         Pray. Read scriptures. Go to church. Take your children. Pray and read scriptures with your children.

·         Love your spouse, and together love your children. Don’t consider divorce—except under the most severe causes—abuse, adultery, abandonment, or unwilling-to-treat addiction. Let your children know that working things out with those you love is the normal way to live. It’s the civilized way.

·         Stand up for your God-given inalienable right to freedom of religion. Respect others and their beliefs while standing absolutely strong in your own.

·         Live a chaste life: no sex outside of marriage, and absolute fidelity within marriage. You can understand someone with same-sex attraction, but you do not condone—not any more than you understand someone attracted to a married person, but you would not condone adultery.

·         Take responsibility for the education and upbringing of your own children. It’s not up to the schools, or the Sunday School or youth program leadership; it’s up to you. Use those resources if they’re helpful. If they’re not, find something better, or do something better for them yourself.

·         Share uplifting communications in social media, and in all your conversations. Stand strong and firm, and ever respectful, but avoid contention.

·         Volunteer in the community. Lend your help to sports teams for children, charities that match your values, that are working toward goals you admire. Work with people who have challenges you don’t have—it helps you understand and relate, and learn how to truly help.

·         Give to charity. Tithe plus offerings. Give where what you give can do the most good for what you care about.

·         Educate yourself, and share what you learn. Education isn’t just about learning the knowledge and skills for a career (although that’s important too); it’s a beautiful way of living, always. There have never been more ways of learning at little or no cost than there are today.

·         Weed out the things in your life that don’t uplift: the entertainments, the music, the media. Fill those spaces with lasting things of value—better music, better books, better movies, better entertainments.

·         Participate civically. Vote—and be a prepared, educated voter. Participate in grassroots forums: parties, clubs, groups, town halls. Find other like-minded people in the community and join with them in doing good. Influence groups to be better. Contact school boards and elected officials at all levels; let them know what you believe and what you expect from them. Support good candidates, and then keep in contact and keep them accountable.

·         Read the founding documents, and a good variety of history. Understand the beliefs that led to our Constitution. If you’re fuzzy on how defend the basic ideas, study up. I suggest the nearly unlimited short videos at Prager University online, and the free online courses provided by Hillsdale College—start with their Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution.

·         Avoid cynicism. Being smugly right about negative things doesn’t help rebuild anything. Yes, things are dire. But assuming everyone is untrustworthy is just hopeless and discouraging. Find the good, and build on that.

There’s more to do. There will always be more to do. Get yourself anxiously engaged in a good cause, or two, or ten.

Start with yourself. Spread the good to your family. Then connect with other families and individuals with the same goals. Strengthen one another. We’re in a mess here in this world, including in this country. There’s plenty to do. Just do what you can. And pray that there will be enough others that our combined efforts will be enough.

Tyranny and Terror

I’ve been going through the online course offered by Hillsdale College called Public Policy from a Constitutional Viewpoint. Last week was week six. The lecture, given by Will Morrisey, professor emeritus of politics at Hillsdale, was on “Terrorism and Foreign Policy.”

Professor Will Morrisey
screen shot

What caught my attention was how he defined terrorism, using the concepts of tyranny and civilization. There are three interrelated ideas: political freedom versus tyranny, economic freedom versus coerced or controlled economy, and civilization versus savagery. That sounds like we’re describing the Spherical Model. 

The half-hour lecture is coherent, so it’s hard to pull out quotes without missing some of the flow of the argument (which is why I spent the day transcribing the whole thing, as a starting point, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything). So I recommend the entirety. [It may require signing up for the class in order to view, but there is no fee.] 

Here’s a key: as it says in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” and “they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Morrisey uses the word regime to mean, “the most authoritative form of ruling in a political community.” He calls the type of regime we have in America a democratic republic—democratic because it is not based on any right by birth to rule, but all citizens are equal; republic because, rather than directly ruling ourselves, we elect representatives. He also calls us a commercial republic, a term I hadn’t heard before:

In addition to being a Democratic Republic, we’re also a Commercial Republic. And on the same natural rights foundation. Commerce, or trade, is the practice of self-government in the realm of economic life. Commerce and trade operate by persuasion, not command and coercion. In both our political life and our political economy, Americans rule themselves by consent.

Consent isn’t mere assent, or acquiescence. Consent means reasoned assent. Whether it comes to selecting a congressman or buying a house, either way we’re comparing and contrasting; we’re thinking about the choice we’re about to make.

A regime consisting of a tyrant or of an oligarchy, commanding a military and a secret police, enforcing edicts on who is to rule us and on what we buy and sell, with most of the profits going to the tyrant or the oligarchs, would leave a people with very different habits of mind and heart than a people that had established a democratic and commercial Republic.

To live in a tyranny or an oligarchy is to have a different mental and moral environment. And the founders of tyrannical and oligarchical regimes know that.

Both political and economic freedom require consent, as opposed to coercion. This is background to the “what is terrorism” question. Here’s the simple definition:

Terrorism is savagery deployed as a technique by rulers or would-be rulers.

He adds more detail later, in describing the definition that has been with us since the Declaration of Independence.

Terrorism, a form of warfare and of ruling that refuses to distinguish ages, sexes, and conditions, aims at ruling not by reason, but by fear. Terrorists attack civilians. This is true of terrorist organizations that don’t control territory—the old Irish Republican Army, Al-Qaeda, for example—and those that do control territory, and indeed control sovereign states—the Nazis in Germany, the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, the Maoists in China. 

But more than that, terrorism is anti-civilian in a much deeper sense; terrorism attacks civility itself, the habits of self-government by reasons persuasion. It seeks command with no backtalk. And it does so because, whether it’s deployed against civilians and against civility, by the Nazis and Communists of yesterday, or the jihadis of today, it denies the principle of the American founding that “all men are created equal.”

Alternatively, it may deny that all those we call men are really men, really human at all.

His definition is broader than I would have used. I would have called the Nazi and Soviet regimes unjust wars, but their attempt at gaining territory was mostly military. However, where they purposely targeted civilians, including people living in their own countries, Morrisey and I agree on definition.

So, terrorism, committed by either a state or a group, is a war crime; it attacks all ages, sexes, and conditions. It is savage, not civilized. It intends to rule, not according to the will of the people, but by coercion. It intends to impose and enforce tyranny, both political and economic tyranny.

He notes that those who claim “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” are usually Americans—and they are Americans who fail to remember what their regime is: a way of protecting life, liberty, and property. More than that, terrorists who claim to be freedom fighters or soldiers of God are nevertheless terrorists if they fail to value life—and fail, even to view all humans as human.

He tells this story from shortly after 9/11.

An Arab television station aired a film in which a three-year-old girl was asked, “What are the Jews?” “The Jews,” she answered dutifully, “are apes and pigs.”

Such a catechism of contempt flows from the rejection of natural right. It forms habits of mind and heart consistent with the regime of tyranny. Tyranny enshrines not the natural rights to life, but the right to kill.

The Islamic version of terrorism is new, but tyranny—and its refusal to value all lives as equally human—has been around all along.

Either you value all lives equally, or you don’t. In America we do. One example Morrisey shares is about the natives of the continent:

When fighting the American Indian nations during and after the Revolutionary War, George Washington and the other founders distinguished between what they understood as the savage nations and the civilized ones. For example, they referred to the Cherokee Nation, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws, the Creek, and Seminole Nations as the five civilized tribes. Civilized Indian nations that were not allied with the British Empire against us were not the enemy. Some of them even fought on our side.

The early Americans settled land for these civilized tribes, gave them farming implements, and intended to live peaceably together. Morrisey acknowledged, later in the lecture, that there were unfortunately times the nation failed to follow its own policies, as in the Trail of Tears. It isn’t, of course, a matter of race the determines who is savage, but the behavior.

Early on, during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, he faced, not terrorism, but piracy, sponsored by the Muslim states of Morroco, Algiers, and Tripoli. Jefferson was no isolationist when it came to keeping our trade lanes clear.

But Jefferson fought, not all Muslims, but those whose savage behavior was intended to ruin the democratic and commercial republic that was the fledgling United States of America.

While there were very few Muslims in America early on, we can see how the founders treated various religions in general.

There were few if any Muslims in the United States in the 1790s when he was president. But we do know the way Washington thought about religious congregations generally. Among his first acts as president were his letters to the major American religious congregations, his own Episcopalians, but also Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Quakers, and perhaps most importantly Jewish congregations in Newport, Rhode Island.

Although European regimes had reestablished one or several types of Christianity as politically privileged, Washington’s America was having none of that. The government of the United States, he told all of them, “welcomes members of any religious confession insofar as they conduct themselves as good citizens of the United States.” [from “Letter to the Hebrew Congregation,” August 18, 1790]

Although many American protestants had looked with asperity at Catholics, and peoples around the world had persecuted Jews, Washington and the other founders cared only that citizens act like citizens, obeying the laws respecting the civil and natural rights of their fellow citizens. “No set of religious practices consistent with American constitutional law will be grounds for denial of civil rights by the American federal government.”

The simple way was the best way—don’t judge the religious people on their beliefs, but look at whether they live as good citizens. They need to support our laws, and value and respect the natural rights of their fellow citizens.

The lecture was, on the whole, about developing policy, so it ends with this:

Any American foreign policy must first understand what America is, what we stand for. Confusion on that basic point can only yield confused policy.

After clarifying who we are, the next priority for American citizens who think about our foreign policy must be to identify the primary enemies of our regime and rank them in order of danger…. In dealing with the terrorists we must take care not to exhaust ourselves, leaving our country vulnerable to more formidable powers.

The third and last priority is the strategic one. Setting a strategy, choosing allies, calibrating diplomatic, economic, and military actions to weaken and eventually defeat the terrorists. No simple rule can guide us in that strategy, because it’s a matter of practical judgment on the spot.

In such judgments we should take care to guard our sovereignty, our self-government, by recurring to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which can and should both animate our actions and restrain.

So, to summarize, we need to have confidence in who we are: the people who believe in freedom, free enterprise, and civilization—because we have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. We live in peace with those who believe those same things. Those who want to impose some other regime on us must be resisted to the fullest extent.

Review of the Proper Role of Government

This is a public service message for several presidential candidates, their supporters, and anyone else who may have forgotten (or never learned) the answer to this question: What is the proper role of government?

Choose the best answer. The proper role of government is: 

A: to redistribute wealth, provide jobs, and control wages.

B: to protect the environment, end racism, and enforce agreement with prevailing opinions.

C: to offer security, education, and health care. 

D: to protect life, liberty, and property.

Clue: the answer is in the Declaration of Independence.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

What does “Pursuit of Happiness” mean? because that’s the single difference from answer D. It means “property,” but more; it includes choosing how to pursue wealth—what job or profession you will choose—and it includes other pursuits that may or may not lead to gaining property, but are ways you choose to spend your life. Property is, after all, the things you accumulate by living your life in a way that exceeds subsistence. So “property” is shorthand for “how you live your life and pursue happiness,” but since “pursuit of happiness” is less concrete, for our purposes we can refer to property and be close enough.

If we turn to the Preamble of the Constitution, we can see how life, liberty, and property are applied:

 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Protecting life, liberty, and property, then, require some security things, like common defense from external forces, peace among the states (domestic Tranquility), and a justice system for lawbreakers and settling disputes, plus “general Welfare” good practices like standardized weights and measures, and maintaining the value of money, and arguably interstate roads and bridges.

All of these things are designed to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”

There are some more specifics within the body of the Constitution—enumerated powers. That doesn’t mean just numbered (although they are), but named, or specified. Nothing is enumerated there that isn’t designed to protect life, liberty, and property. And then comes the Bill of Rights, which spell out things that government absolutely can’t do, just in case someone comes along in a generation beyond the founders that doesn’t understand the “self-evident” truths.

There’s another truth about the role of government: 

Whenever government goes beyond its proper role, there will be unintended negative consequences—and they are likely to be exactly opposite of the stated purpose of the government action. 

For example:

·        Government interference intended to alleviate poverty increases poverty, and keeps individuals in poverty who would otherwise have worked their way out of it.

·        Government interference intended to provide jobs limits job creation, and likely increases unemployment, underemployment, and/or people giving up and leaving the workforce.

·        Government interference intended to provide minimum “living wages” limits job opportunities for the lowest qualified workers, leaving them with no wage, rather than a living wage, and leaving them without experience-building work to increase their wage-earning abilities for later.

·        Government interference intended to protect the environment damages the environment while also damaging free market solutions that would have otherwise improved the environment.

·        Government interference intended to end racism increases looking at race rather than looking at character among citizens.

·        Government interference intended to provide education ensures an inferior education than can be achieved through free market innovations, private schools, and homeschools.

·        Government interference intended to lower the cost of high education has raised the costs of higher education and student loans, making it more difficult for more worthy students to get the education they need and want and are willing to work for.

·        Government interference intended to lower healthcare costs and healthcare insurance rates raises the cost of healthcare and insurance, making paying for basic health services less affordable for more people, and prevents free market innovations and philanthropy that could solve the problems.

It’s a pattern. You can count on it. Civilized free people in a free market are unstoppable when it comes to innovation, wealth creation, and strength. And they keep thriving as long as the people live civilized lives, and as long as the citizens are diligent in limiting government.

This can be true not only in the United States, but anywhere in the world where the rules are followed:

Freedom comes from government limited to only protecting life, liberty, and property. Prosperity comes from free market, which rewards hard work and innovation. Civilization comes from living lives that value God, life, family, and truth.