….promises are made with Other People's Money, or OPM.
There is a story floating around the Internet about a teacher who decided to hold a mock election for president in her 5th grade classroom. The gist of the story is that she instructed the class to pick several possible candidates for president on each side, as a kind of primary election. Then the class voted for one candidate out of each of the two groups of candidates. The names of the two finalists were Johnny and Mary. The teacher then told Johnny and Mary to give a speech about what they would do as president. Johnny got to go first. He gave a long speech about how he would follow his principles and always do a good job. Mary gave a very short speech in which she said as president, she would give everyone in the classroom an ice cream cone. Mary won hands down. When Mary was pressed for how she was going to pay for the cones, she said she would require that each kid with rich parents would have to pay because the poor kids didn't have any money; to which the kids with the rich parents yelled, "….. why do our parents have to pay?" One little kid in the back of the room, rose from his desk and told the teacher in a plain, emotionless voice, "such a plan is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment." The teacher was stunned. She and Mary were speechless. The class didn't care who paid. They wanted their ice cream cones.
The fact is, when a politician promises "goodies" like ice cream cones to get votes, their promises are made with Other People's Money, or OPM. The crux of the matter is, that seems to escape everyone's attention, the candidate or politician doesn't own what they are promising to give. Some might call that theft or fraud and those who make a practice of "stealing" OPM, usually go to jail when caught. But it is perfectly OK for a politician or a candidate for public office, to promise or steal OPM in order to "buy" votes to stay in office, or get elected.
But let's go back to the little kid that stated that Mary's plan for payment of the ice cream cones was in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: (We have underlined the appropriate passage)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
First of all, there is no mention in the U. S. Constitution regarding the government's authority to "TAKE" from those with the greatest capability, and give it to those with the greatest need. The government has just assumed that authority by perverting the "……… and promote the general welfare" clause in the preamble. Then, when the government forces those with the greatest capability to pay those with the greatest need, they deny the person with the greatest capability, equal protection of the laws.
When someone with more, pays or gives something to someone with less, it is called charity and it is an act of selflessness. In a free country, under liberty, charity is supposed to be the "FREE" choice of the giver, as to whom gets the gift and how much they are to receive. Americans are the most generous people on Earth and give more to national and international charities than any other culture or country on Earth. When government forces people to be "generous" with a gun to their head under tax law, they make a mockery out of the charity of free choice. But worse, what they have done, is created a system of government as described by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. A recent candidate for President of the United States has endorsed just such a system of government and the candidate's wife totally agrees with him. They are now the president elect and first lady in waiting.
Two important questions arise in government's enforced wealth re-distribution scheme. Who decides who gets the charity and who decides what those with the greatest capability (the producer) have to pay? In other words, what is the producer's fair share? The producer's fair share is what government decides and is anything but free-choice charity. It is instead, enforced charity, which isn't charity at all. This system operates on the false premise that someone in need is owed a debt by someone who is productive. That's not liberty, that's government-induced slavery.
What happens over time is the producer starts realizing his "fair" share is anything but fair and the producer starts thinking very hard about either not producing any more, or hiding what he produces. Or, he takes his wealth, his ideas, his skills, or his company that employs a lot of people, offshore. It's called brain and money drain and occurs often in socialist countries. What happens is the wealth, creativity and production is removed from the country and it descends into mindless mediocrity. This was the basis, or plot if you will, of Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged".
Far too many of "those supposedly with the greatest need" and who are receiving enforced charity from the producers, are more than capable of taking care of themselves. Should the producer ever wise up, we predict that there will be a silent war of resistance. Charity by choice will decrease, enforced charity may go down as more producers secretly opt out of the mandatory program and those on welfare might have to look for a job and become self-reliant and responsible, as they are supposed to be. Those in true need may have to look to private, family or church charity for their subsistence. Meanwhile, the producers will get even more creative about avoiding their "fair" share.
Americans are a funny lot. When you tell an American he HAS to do something, he usually gets very creative on finding ways not to do it, unless of course a pay check or his freedom is at risk. We wonder, how long he will take it before he finally rebels? The answer is, he is rebelling already and the rebellion will just increase. The silent war between the producers and the takers has already started and is in full swing. And it is an unnecessary war, created by government socialist policies; policies that are totally designed to keep certain politicians in a particular party, in office, by playing on the weakness of man.
Long live the Socialist Republic of America under Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Kennedy and Clinton; Democrats all, the party that has bankrupted America and drove a knife into the heart of America's solvency, sovereignty and freedom! And whom did we select to be the new captain of the Titanic, Barack Hussein Obama, a candidate for which the Communist Party of America and our enemies, are jumping for joy!
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 98027
425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848
(Fax No. 425 222-4743)