Who moved my cheese?

I have been thinking a lot about the short book "Who moved my cheese?" by Dr. Spencer Johnson. Specifically, I am continuing to evaluate my life and the world around me and I am having difficulty coming to grips with which character represents me the best. At work, I am a very adaptive person - able to adjust to the changes of the business and customer climate (yes, they are different). At home, with my family, I have readily adjusted to the changes that occur when your children reach the teen years. On both accounts, I consider adaptation not only a reality of growth but I have been able to adjust and move prior to many around me. I am the hunter - looking for the next stash of cheese and doing the necessary things to provide for myself and my loved ones.

However, when it comes to the rest of the world we live in - apparently I am the mouse who is left watching, waiting and confused - "Who moved my cheese?". There are but a few cornerstones that I rely on that helps me stay grounded as I move through life. Unfortunately, it seems more than one of those foundations is becoming unmoored . Specifically, the second level of my foundation is crumbling which begins to change the structure above it. This country that I have been blessed to be born in to, and continue to believe is the best country man has been so graciously gifted with, is losing its way.

In the United States, there was a time - not so long ago, that the morals of the masses was the way of the land. The country was comprised of an overwhelming majority that believed we were free to fail or prosper on our own and that the government was there for very specific purposes. Specifically, as the United States Constitution's preamble reads "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". Now, we live in a time that growing minorities pit 'rich' against 'poor', religions against religions, races against races, and constituents against representatives. I am not so naive to believe this is a new construct - differences have existed long before this great republic. What is disheartening to see is the acceleration and evergrowing conflict between the citizenry.

Many have lost sight of the facts that (this is but a very short list but have been a source of conflict for me in just the past few days) :

• 'Tax cuts' for a given class is nothing more than permission to keep more of what has been earned.
• Freedom of expression is for all to participate in, not just specific classes.
  
• Your rights stop when you impact the rights of your neighbor.
• To whom much is given, much is expected.
• Without a foundation of rights for all, not a single individuals rights are worth the paper they are written on.

Where does this leave us moving forward? Has the cheese been moved? If so, where do you go looking for more? After all, if this country fails - it is my genuine belief that this will be the last experiment of true government by the people. We are slipping away at an ever increasing pace.

I don't have time at this moment to finish my thoughts - but wanted to start the dialog.

The incremental slide

The debate in Congress over the 'Health Care' bill has forced me to look at all that is and has happened in this country during my brief life. Looking at the debate and contrasting that to other differences in our society I think I have come to the simple conclusion that both sides of the aisle are more focused on incrementalism towards a goal they disagree with than the subject at hand.

On the political right, conservatives fear more than anything else that Socialism is the targeted direction and health care is just the next big hurdle. They may be right and looking back at the incremental steps made towards that end can be seen through the action of their opponents. Name a single thing that you do on a day to day basis that is not directly controlled, taxed or manipulated by the government ....

On the left, giving in on any portion of the debate will lead to safe ground where the opposition can build (or take away) from something they hold dear. Example: Covering abortion under the massive health care overhaul. Any argument about federal spending for this by the right is immediately responded to by stating that we can't interfere with a women's right to choose. After all, giving in on this topic might just lead to an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The arguments around a single payer system are vast. The one that I continue to be amazed by is where the folks on the left are 'for the little people' and that we need to deliver services to those that can't afford to pay for themselves. I am a BIG proponent of helping out, donating time and money, looking out for those less fortunate and insuring that nothing stands in the way of someone living up to their own potential. However, the argument of taking more and more from one class of people to a different class of people with the threat of prosecution is not looking out for anyone. Plain and simple it is extortion and theft. Even if 100% of the additional money collected went directly to those less fortunate - doing so through threat of prosecution is a direct attack on the liberties of another.
On the other side of the argument.... we have some in our society who forget or fail to acknowledge that their good fortune comes by the grace of God. That their good fortune has been given to them for a reason and that we are all just here temporarily. Yes, hard work and commitment are the tools that many of them used to gather their wealth but they were given the opportunity by a power higher than themselves.

While this post is not nearly complete - I want to close with a small example of how much trouble the current direction by our government is causing us. Consider the data last reported (2008) shows that we have roughly 19.7 million government employees in the United States. This includes state and local along with military and federal. While they don't all make the > $100,000 that was recently reported .... if we estimate that each employee makes $70,000 (unburdened costs) a year. I am using simple math for estimating and the numbers could be much more extreme if we dig in to it in more detail. How many non-government employees does it take to pay their salaries? If the non-government employee made the same $70,000 and were taxed at 15% and the entirety of that tax went to pay direct salary payments to the government employee ..... it would take 131,500,000 citizens just to pay the salaries.

For those that claim the government pays the employees not Joe Public. Please remember that the government doesn't have anything. The government does make anything. The government does truly sell anything. When the government prints more money the only thing that changes is the volume of money. This in turn has the adverse affect making the money in your pocket worth less.

Back to the example - what happens if 10% of the public were to lose their jobs? In an effort to jumpstart the economy the government creates new jobs - but they are government jobs, what happens to the model. In order to pay for government employees taxes are raised to 16.7% and the government can then hire an additional 39,450 employees. All this while 13.15 million of the previous 131.5 million workers are now out of work. THIS MODEL SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Remember this when the Census workers are on the payroll and we are told that unemployment just dropped dramatically.

When the government takes and takes and demands more and more from its citizens it no longer works for the people. Instead the people are working for the government. Abraham Lincoln closed the Gettysburg address with "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. " Let us not forget those words and do the right thing for God, country and each other.

Times have changed

Governments have long been the safeguards for those less fortunate. At least that is what they have claimed - in reality it has been the charitable organizations that do the real work. Have we just seen the beginning of a new era of entitlements? Take a read here and tell me if you can see the same thing coming to your government decision body.

Seriously - television being essential? I guess iPhones, high speed internet and convection ovens are the new food and shelter staples. Yes, the story is from Brazil but what makes you think the U.S. government won't follow the path? We already have a government wanting to give out contraception to our kids in schools and a massive 'Share the wealth' plan with the latest 'stimulus package'.

Elected representatives - please go back to taking care of the things that really matter. Pay down the debt so my grandchildren don't need to do it. Protect this great country and the principles it was founded on. Read the Constitution and understand why it was written the way it was. And please hold criminals accountable for their offenses before you start making more people criminals by passing ridiculous frivolous laws.

Let's go back in time

While amendments to the Constitution are worthy attempts to keep the 'living' document alive, I think there was a change made that needs to be looked at again. The section of the Constitution that I want to talk about is one of the most sensitive portions - it is important to understand that I am concerned with the less known portion of what the 14th amendment modified.
The Constitution (Article I, Section 2), as originally written spells out :

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

I am most interested in the 2nd through 4th words of this sentence. The reference to taxes was completely removed from the 14th amendment and, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons we have the imbalance in taxation we find today. This portion of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) is all about how the representative government would be set up ... representative of the population.
I believe our forefathers knew what would happen if large groups of citizens had a power without responsibility for the power they created. If you take the founding fathers at their word - the taxation of the states should currently follow that of the Electoral College. Take a look at the map to follow along.
Instead of a tax system where every citizen is taxed at a given rate (don't get me started about the unfair nature of regressive taxes) - each state would be responsible for paying 'their share' to the federal government. The fair share would be the same as their ability to elect the President and Vice President. Areas of higher population have more votes and should also pay more in taxes ( on a regional basis ). This has nothing to do with income levels - it is a direct mapping to their constitutional rights presented in the Constitution. To simplify - you pay the taxes proportional to your access to the government providing the services for you.
So, in the case of the U.S. population - my state would be responsible for providing 1.86% of the federal budget (10 electoral votes for the state of Maryland against 538 total electoral votes). On the other hand a state like New York (which can decide an election) should provide 5.76% of the federal budget and California should provide 10.22%.

This model could and should be used at the state level as well. If you have a larger voice - you should pay a higher price. This is not an attack on individuals - it is the fundamental fairness that our founding fathers had designed and over time, we have forgotten. Perhaps if the citizens had to pay for the services they are demanding - they could/would be a little more careful in exercising their right to the vote in the first place.