Milton Friedman's Economic Bill of Rigths

Budget Spending
To protect the people against excessive governmental burdens and to promote sound fiscal and monetary policies, total outlays of the Government of the United States shall be limited. Total outlays in any fiscal year shall not increase by a percentage greater than the percentage increase in the nominal gross national product in the last calendar year ending prior to the beginning of said fiscal year.
Emergency Budget Spending
Following declaration of an emergency by the President, Congress may authorize, by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, a specified amount of emergency outlays in excess of the limit for the current fiscal year.
Debt
When, for any fiscal year, total revenues received by the Government of the United States exceed total outlays, the surplus shall be used to reduce the public debt of the United States until such debt is eliminated.
Taxation
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes of persons, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, provided that the same tax rate is applied to all income in excess of occupational and business expenses and a personal allowance of a fixed amount. The word "person" shall exclude corporations and other artificial persons.
Money Supply
Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent.
Inflation
All contracts between the U.S. government and other parties stated in dollars, and all dollar sums contained in federal laws, shall be adjusted annually to allow for the change in the general level of prices during the prior year.
International Trade
Congress shall not lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing inspection laws.
Wages and Prices
Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of sellers of goods or labor to price their products or services.
Licenses
No State shall make or impose any laws which shall abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to follow any occupation or profession of his choice.
Free Trade
The right o the people to buy and sell legitimate goods and services at mutually acceptable terms shall not be infringed by Congress or any other of the States.

Welcome readers from the PoliticusUSA post Bill of Wrongs... Please check out the Congressional Progressive Caucus 2012 People's Budget.

"Son of Strelka, Son of God" by Dan Warren & Ainsley Seago...

... using words from the audio version of Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father







More animated chapters to come; listen to the finished audio version here...

Thomas Sowell: The Intelligentsia's income gap myth; statistical class categories vs flesh-and-blood people

Many statements have been made in the media and in academia, claiming that the rich are gaining not only larger incomes but a growing share of all incomes, widening the income gap between people at the top and those at the bottom.  Almost invariably these statements are based on confusing what has been happening over time in statistical categories with what has been happening over time with actual flesh-and-blood people...
Although such discussions have been phrased in terms of people, the actual empirical evidence cited has been about what has been happening over time to statistical categories --- and that turns out to be the direct opposite of what has happened over time to flesh-and-blood human beings, most of whom move from one category to another over time.  In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20 percent bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between top and bottom quintiles.  But U.S. Treasury Department data, following specific individuals over time from their tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service, show that in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1996 rose by 91 percent by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20 percent in 1996 rose by only 10 percent in 2005 --- and those in the top 5 percent and one percent actually declined.
When those taxpayers who were initially in the lowest income bracket had their incomes nearly double in a decade, that moved many of them up and out of the bottom quintile --- and when those in the top one percent had their incomes cut by about one-fourth, that may well have dropped them out of the top one percent.  Internal Revenue Service data can follow particular individuals over time from their tax returns, which have individual Social Security numbers as identification, while data from the Census Bureau and most other sources follow what happens to statistical categories over time, even though it is not the same individuals in the same categories over the years.
Many of the same kinds of data used to claim a widening income gap between "the rich" and "the poor" --- names usually given to people with different incomes, rather than different wealth, as the term rich and poor might seem to imply --- have led many in the media to likewise claim a growing income gap between the "super-rich" and the "merely rich." ... Once again, the confusion is between what is happening to statistical categories over time and what is happening to flesh-and-blood individuals over time, as they move from one statistical category to another.
Despite the rise in the income of the top 0.1 percent of the taxpayers as a statistical category, both absolutely and relative to the incomes in the other categories, as flesh-and-blood human beings those individuals who were in that category initially had their incomes fall by a whopping 50 percent between 1996 and 2005...
[M]any among the intelligentsia are ready to seize upon any numbers that seem to fit their vision.  Behind many of those numbers and the accompanying alarmist rhetoric is a very mundane fact: Most people begin their working careers at the bottom, earning entry-level salaries.  Over time [they enter] successively higher income brackets...  More than three-quarters of working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991.  Only 5 percent of those who were initially in the bottom quintile were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of those who were initially at the bottom quintile had risen to the top quintile.  Yet verbal virtuosity has transformed a transient cohort in a given statistical category into an enduring class called "the poor."
Only by focusing on the income brackets, instead of the actual people moving between those brackets, have the intelligentsia been able to verbally create a "problem" for which a "solution" is necessary.  They have created the powerful vision of "classes" with "disparities" and "inequities" in income, caused by "barriers" created by "society."  But the routine rise of of millions of people out of the lowest quintile over time makes a mockery of the "barriers" assumed by many, if not most, of the intelligentsia.
The confusion between statistical categories and flesh-and-blood human beings is compounded when there is confusion between income and wealth.  People called "rich" or "super-rich" have been given those titles by the media based on the basis of income, not wealth, even though being rich means having more wealth.  According to the Treasury Department: "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 --- the top 1/100 of 1 percent --- only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005."  If these were genuinely super-rich people, it is hard to explain why three-quarters of them are no longer in that category a decade later.

-Excerpt from Thomas Sowell's book Intellectuals and Society

Barry Goldwater on the collectivists achieving Socialism through the Welfare State

The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare State. The collecivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal - to subordinate the individual to the State - but their strategy has changed.  They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization.  They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it.  They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State - not by making the State his employer - but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave.  Moreover, they have discovered - and here is the critical point - that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political process of a democratic society.  Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises of "free" federal benefits - "free" housing, "free" school aid, "free" hospitalization, "free" retirement pay and so on...
I do not welcome this shift in strategy.  Socialism-through-Welfarism poses  far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat.
It is hard, as we have seen, to make out a case for State ownership.  It is very different with the rhetoric of humanitarianism.  How easy it is to reach the voters with earnest importunities for helping the needy.
Have you no sense of social obligation? the Liberals ask.  "Have you no concern for people who are out of work? for sick people who lack medical care? for children in overcrowded schools?  Are you unmoved by the problems of the aged and disabled?  Are you against human welfare?
The answer to all of these questions is, of course, no.  But a simple "no" is not enough.  I feel certain that Conservatism is through unless Conservatives can demonstrate and communicate the difference between being concerned with these problems and believing that the federal government is the proper agent for their solution.

-Excerpt from Barry Goldwater's 1960 book Concience of a Conservative

David Mamet

------------

David Mamet on the Liberal Arts Education & Liberal Arts University:
Consider college education which, in the Liberal Arts, and in the social sciences, or whatever they may be called today, is effectively a waste of money and time, and useless save as that display of leisure and wealth... A Liberal Arts education is essentially a recognition symbol, which, as such might theoretically facilitate entrance into a higher class, were entrance awarded on the basis solely of that passport; but see the MAs in English bagging groceries. Higher Education is selling an illusion: that the child of the well-to-do need not matriculate into the workforce - that mastery of a fungible skill is unnecessary.
[The Liberal young] spend their four to six or seven years in pursuit of a Liberal Arts Education whose content, let alone whose purpose, no one seems quite able to describe.
These Liberal Arts victims were, fifty or sixty years ago, likely to be subsumed into actual enterprises and given entry-level jobs.  Or, harkening back to their parent's time, taught practicable (or at least merchandisable) skills, allowing them entrance into various Professions.
No, the luckless product of our Liberal Universities, skill-less, will not touch that item his culture named taboo: [physical manual] work.  So we see the proliferation, in Liberal Communities, of counselors, advisors, life coaches, consultants, feng shui "experts," as the undereducated chickens come home to roost.
This courtesy [those occupations accorded respect by community consent] is unconsciously extended by the Liberal Community to its unemployable young... the young "practitioner" can exist only among his own. His specialized skills can be sold only in the Liberal Communities.  He, thus, will quite literally never, cradle-to-grave, encounter a Conservative Idea, let alone a Conservative.
These young people have, in the useful if lurid phrase, grown up in a parallel country.  They do not know what they do not know, and their insulation, geographically and professionally, ensures their continued ignorance - those they meet, that which they read and see, nothing will induce nor force them to confront their inherited cultural assumptions...
What is Liberal Education? It has become indoctrination in aggressive Identity Politics...
Who would pay them to bravely proclaim, "That's not funny?"
They were and are children of privilege... the privilege taught, learned, and imbibed, in a "liberal arts education" is the privilege to indict.  These children have, in the main, never worked, learned to obey, command, construct, amend, or complete - to actually contribute to the society.  They have learned to be shrill, and that their indictment, on the economy, on sex, on race, on the environment, though based on no experience other than hearsay, must trump any discourse, let alone opposition.  It occurred to me that I had seen this behavior elsewhere, where it was called developmental difficulty.
It is impossible that the eighteen-year-old, in the laissez-faire of the Liberal Arts courses of Identity Politics, can [structure one's day productively].  Of course he will look for certainty, and he will find it in the herd.  Being equipped with neither experience nor philosophy, he will adopt the cant of those round him; and his elders, far from correcting him, endorse him, and, indeed, charge him for the experience, and call it "college tuition." But it is the Socialist Camp, and creative not of productive Citizens, but of intolerant, uneducated, and incurious graduates, who now, at the age of twenty-one or twenty-two, must either look for work bagging groceries, or defer the trauma of matriculation by further course of "study."
I believe that the Liberal Arts University has had it.

-Davit Mamet's The Secret Knowledge




---------------

David Mamet's Coming Out Party
By Bari Weiss 
5/28/2011

---------------

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm
Daily Beast 1/29/2013
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”
This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.
But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?

A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.

An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?

My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.

Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”

What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?

Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.
Good.

We need more armed citizens in the schools.

Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?

Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?

Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.

Why do I specify concealed carry? As if the weapons are concealed, any potential malefactor must assume that anyone on the premises he means to disrupt may be armed—a deterrent of even attempted violence.

Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?

Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding?

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

--------------

A Reading Guide and List for the Deprogramming and Conversion of a Liberal Intellectual

In an interview with the WSJ, David Mamet has provided a list of books that have opened his eyes to the virtues of Conservatism which eventually coalesced in his own book entitled Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture.

Mr. Mamet's conversion began with these books:
Witness by Whittaker Chambers
White Guilt by Shelby Steele
Ethnic America by Thomas Sowell
The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War by Wilfred Trotter
The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.