TFP Column: Wasting Away

I think it's great when really rich guys get to pull an 'Ebeneezer Scrooge', repent their life of evil money-making ways, and seek absolution when they begin to see the end of their days approaching.  It makes me feel kind of ... violently ill.

So it was with a certain degree of nausea that I took up comments by one of the richest men (if not the richest) in the world, Warren Buffet in a piece for the TFP entitled: "Wasting Away".  After getting past the shock that this Mr. Buffett wasn't the guy wasting away in Margarittaville, I found that I was still confronted with what seemed little more than alcoholic stupor when he told us that rich people are being "coddled" by not being asked (or forced) too pay enough in federal income taxes.

Now I'm willing to bet my next refund check that Warren Buffett has spent more on people to keep his tax liability as low as possible over the years than I have made in my lifetime.  But hey, who am I to argue with a man who plans to give some $30 Billion (yes, that's with a 'B') to ..... charity.  

Hey wait a minute! If paying taxes is so great, why isn't Jimmy (sorry, Warren) giving all this money to the government?  Could it be that they won't be as efficient in spending it?  Could it be that the Gates Foundation is much more likely to use the money in truly worthy causes?  Could it have something to do with the tax deduction that Mr Buffett will legally get for such charitable donations?

But enough about this all-you-can-tax Buffett.  What I know for sure is that if you want to live anything like Mr. Buffett (or at least like his accountants), you're going to have to catch up on the great things going on in Toledo's largest circulation and Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

Editor's note:  I had been looking forward to achieving a milestone in my efforts with the TFP of 100 columns, and had even commented on the situation to Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller.  You can imagine my surprise (and a little disappointment), when having done some cleaning up on the labels for the blog, I discovered that this effort will be the 106th.  It looks like the party is over before it has begun.

   

Politicians Are A Necessary Evil

"Most Politicians are like Halloween decorations.  It's OK to display them in public for a few days once a year, but you don't want to leave them out too long ... they scare the children."

If it seem like I spend a lot of time castigating politicians on both sides of the aisle ... it's because I do.  Don't get me wrong, most of them are probably pretty decent people outside of their political responsibilities (but there are some that are simply and seriously wrong in ways that I don't have time to get into in this post).  What they have CHOSEN to do however, cannot help but call their intelligence, common sense, and ulterior motives into question.  Who after all would choose to sit through school board or city council meetings that are only slightly less entertaining than being trapped in an elevator for hours at a time with a talkative hypochondriac, a flatulent idiot, and a self-righteous and proselytizing bigot without a damn good reason?  

Like many, I've heard the pronouncements of "the call to public service", and I believe for a few that it's actually true; but as it relates to far more of those seeking office, I have more than a few doubts.  In fact, I'm far more willing to believe the outlandish claims of AXE ads telling me that if I spray some cheap crap on myself, the chicks will really dig me than these concocted self-serving rationalizations. (Though that AXE thing really does work ...  No, really!)  Seeking public office, regardless of the misleading reasons handed out like fortune cookies by some office-seekers, is for a great many of these people a desire to take up the mantle of power.

Perhaps the exercise of such power is the prize they believe is their due for the price they pay by humbling themselves in begging for campaign funds, showing up at public events that they don't want to go to (and normally wouldn't otherwise), and talking to a bunch of 'just plain folks' who want them to make the neighbors dog stop barking in the middle of the night.  This 'Let's Make a Deal' trade should not and does not however, grant them a level of self-importance beyond their previous station; nor does election provide them as a 'servant of the people' with membership in some elite society.

Worse still however, is that somehow being elected often seems to mistakenly confer upon them the belief that they can solve the world's ills if they can just pass one more law.  Many times it doesn't even matter what the laws long-term consequences (good or bad) might be, as long as such a law has the elected official's name attached to it.  It seems as if somehow the thrill of competing and winning in the game of politics has had the side effect of turning these once normal people into media addicts, jonesing for the microphone and the camera, desperate for the fix of a broadcast soundbite.

Politicians can in fact, solve little if anything by passing another bit of legislation (though they can create some rather costly and unsuccessful attempts to do so).  If the world could have had its ills resolved by the passing of a law, don't you think someone in the long history of politics and politicians would have come up with it by now. "Passing laws is like passing gas.  It normally serves no one but those passing it, is an impolite thing to do at best (especially in public), and often results in a horrible and lingering odor."

Those we elect to office should recognize that they are only necessary as the chosen sacrifices made by a civilized society (well, kind of anyway) that recognizes that it's far too wrapped up in self-indulgence, complacency, and ignorance to govern itself.  We can respect the nature of the sacrifice that some make on our behalf, while retaining what now seems an all but necessary skepticism of the motives of the rest.  For their own and society's benefit (and much like small children), they should seek to be mostly seen and not heard.  Also like children, they should work hardest at staying out of mischief.  All of us should likewise keep in mind that where politicians are concerned, they serve us best who burden us least with their efforts.

And so perhaps we are left with a reluctant thanks to those who serve us in office at the same time that we must at all times be suspicious of their efforts and methods.  Like those responsible for picking up the trash, we should applaud their services to the common good without seeking to join them in what often becomes their rather distasteful efforts.  Like the actors that they many times are, we seem to ask little of them these days but that they entertain us.  Most (except the best) should remember however, that they are only necessary until the new crop of would-be zealots and power seekers makes its appearance at the next election. Ultimately, politicians (and government) are nothing more than a necessary evil that we must perpetrate upon ourselves in protection from the even greater evils that Man is capable of. 

(All quotes used in this post are from ... me.)

The Irish Anniversary

Having my daughter and her family come to visit the City of Fountains was indeed a joy, and reminded my of a time only eight short years ago when that family was just beginning.  It was a time when my rather self-willed youngest offspring decided that she needed to get married in Ireland. It didn't seem to matter at the time that she had just been married just a few weeks earlier in New York City.  Of great concern however, was the idea that her father was going to visit Ireland without her.  The next thing that we knew, the game was afoot. 

As if making a wedding come off in a foreign country were not daunting enough of a challenge for any young couple (thank goodness for her wedding planner), this turned out to be the weekend of the big Northeast blackout.  Each of us was stranded in their respective airport, with all of us losing a day of travel when power failed from NY to Cleveland.  I have been told that there is no more pitiful sight than that of a young lady sitting on her luggage in an airline terminal, clutching her wedding dress, and sobbing uncontrollably.  (And I would tend to agree, since it certainly sounded that way as I listened to her on the phone that evening.)

Somehow however, not only did we all make it across the pond; but everyone managed to make it to the ceremony on time as well.  This in spite of the fact that there were a few other responsibilities and ceremonies to be dealt with that weekend.  The ceremony itself was held at Newtowne Castle just southwest of Ballyvaughan in County Clare, with the reception at the Ballinalacken Castle Hotel in Doolin (following the traditional visit by the wedding party to the local pub, of course).  It was an astonishingly beautiful day and ceremony, with fine clear weather not being the only thing about it that was rather extraordinary. (Other extraordinary parts of the story we were only to find out years later, which is a tale for another day.)  

Since today is the anniversary of that day back in 2003, I decided to drag out a few of the pictures from that rather magical event.  Since few of you were able to celebrate this blessed event with the family and friends that made the journey (a circumstance which no doubt saved me more than a bit on the bar tab), I decided to put up a few of these memories (in no particular order) on Just Blowing Smoke to commemorate the 8th Irish anniversary of Jim and Laura Demaria.   

Happy Anniversary Jim and Laura, and as the Irish toast goes:

May the road rise up to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
And the rain fall soft upon your fields
And until we meet again
May God hold you in the palm of His hand
And may you live in peace and freedom

 

Revolutionary Tactics

It often seemed that Conservatives were doomed to suffer continue electoral defeats, having learned nothing from the army of their Idols, the Founding Fathers.  Strangely enough in fact, they seem to have been running the playbook of the Redcoats rather the the Rebels for some time now.

For those of you who have not read your Revolutionary War history (and certainly were not exposed to such nonsense in the government indoctrination camps that supposedly educated you), much of the limited success that the fledgling American Army had were the result of using the element of surprise and vastly different tactics than their opponents.  It's of no surprise that they had to do this, since British Army (along with their German mercenaries) were the most disciplined in the world, better financed, and proven in battle.  Their one and only weakness was that they were used to fighting stand up, line abreast battles with other armies on the open fields in Europe, a weakness that the rebels were often able to exploit.

Revolutionary troops had neither the numbers, the training, nor the discipline to fight the same way as their European counterparts.  What they did have though was a knowledge of terrain, a musket with both a longer barrel and a rifled bore, and a marked unwillingness (at least on the part of militia) to trade volley fire with their opponents.  They chose instead to learn from the tactics of their hunting and Indian fighting days, hiding behind any cover available, shooting their opponents leaders first, and seeking strategic retreat (running away) after doing as much damage as they reasonably could.  The few times that the Army managed to mount successful major assaults against the British were usually by sneaking up on their foes at an unexpected time or from an unexpected direction. The times they went toe-to-toe with the British troops, they lost.  These lessons have apparently been lost on today's Conservatives.

Certainly anyone looking at the tactics of today's political battles would agree that the Conservatives seem to be the ones marching ahead in straight lines, heedless of 'shot and shell' around them.  They seem far more willing to accept casualties in the name of 'good sportsmanship', they refuse to adapt their tactics to the opposition or the situation, and usually refuse to engage their opponents on an equal footing.  Often seeming to be more concerned with playing by rules than winning the battle, they blindly repeat prior tactical errors of repeated direct assault.  They blithely accept potential decimation of their ranks in the name of a fairness which disappeared with line abreast formations, and often at the cost of victory.

Their more liberal opponents, for all of their detestation of military matters, understand that history will be written by the victors. Having either failed to read or choosing to ignore the rules of 'civilized' battle presented to them by Conservatives, they snipe away at the right; regularly achieving both tactical and strategic success. Realizing likewise that the victors will dictate the terms of surrender, they seem to grasp firmly the concept that once the battle has been won, no one much cares whether the killing shots were fired from formed ranks or from the cover of a rock.  They understand that it's easier to pick off the key leaders of a group under directed and concentrated fire.  Once such leaders have been effectively neutralized, discipline of your opponents will quickly break down in the ranks and the rest can be easily taken.

Not being privy to the political stratagems of Conservatives at the highest levels, I can only hope that  they are learning with time; that perhaps they are simply following the strategy of the first (and only) Commander of the Continental Army and first Commander-in-Chief of the nation, George Washington.  Washington if you will remember, lost about 2/3 of the stand-up battles that he fought with his British counterparts; but learned from each of his defeats, always managing to withdraw in an orderly fashion and seeking to fight another day.  

Though saddled with a general staff made up of far too many 'privileged characters' whose positions were often no indication of ability, he was still able to maintain a solid fighting force by promoting those of ability regardless of previous rank.  Though starved by a Congress more intent on its own comfort than that of its Army, he somehow managed to rally his troops together in the harshest of conditions; maintaining their spirit to fight on.  Though plagued by 'friends' who turned their back on him to seek their own power and glory, or after insults real or imagined, he somehow managed to maintain discipline and fight on long enough to win the war.

Recent changes in the maneuvers exhibited by Conservatives lead to hope that these lessons are at last not lost on those who most need a new strategy.  Utilizing troops fresh from the growth of the Tea Party Movement, the increasing strength and influence of the Libertarian Party, and the wealth of new citizen-politicians seeking public office; they finally seem to understand that winning should at least be as important has how you do it.  We can only hope that much as the French helped seal the deal for Washington's rag-tag Revolutionary Army, these new allies will provide the additional impetus required for Conservatives to begin to recognize their heritage, and to properly utilize Revolutionary Tactics.

TFP Column: Stop Panhandling

It seems like it was just couple of days ago that I was telling you about an effort of mine going up on the Toledo Free Press website.  Not wait, it was in fact just a couple of days ago that something did.  But as they say on Monty Python's Flying Circus, "... and now for something completely different".

This whole thing started with discussion on 1370 WSPD radio and a piece on the TFP website got me thinking about panhandling in this country.  Little did I realize that there was such a growing problem with people asking for money on street corners (I only thought that they did it in Congress).

The more I thought about this, the more I came to realize that there were different levels of panhandling, and that some of them were just plain wrong.  As it often does, these thoughts turned themselves into a session in front of the keyboard, with "Stop Panhandling" as a result.


Since this was put up Sunday evening, the week is just beginning and I have no idea what will be going on as the days progress. If you want to know however, you will have to spend a bit of time finding out in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

The "C" Word

More and more in society we find ourselves faced with words that almost dare not be spoken in polite society, and sometimes not even outside of it. The 'N' word certainly fits in this category, unless of course you are a young African-American male greeting or chiding another young African-American male. The 'F' word also seems to draw considerable scorn, in spite of having the ability to describe an act of love (though I admit that it does so inappropriately and rather coarsely at best). There are other letters and other words associated with them that could be included as terms of obscenity (two come quickly to mind, one beginning with an R and another a D), but I think you understand the point of my introduction. I would now like to add yet another to this list of loathsome and disgusting words, this one beginning with the letter 'C'.

Now while considering this word to be repugnant, I find that it's impossible to have a discussion of it without its use. So if you will pardon the mention of this rather opprobrious term for the duration of this posting, I would appreciate your indulgence as I take up discussion of the word 'Compromise'.

I know that this is probably not the one you expected to see; but its recent misuse and abuse has made it a particularly loathsome term that has seen far too much degradation to be spoken any longer in polite company. Ostensibly a word used to describe “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions”, it has been bastardized as a result of constant misuse by politicians and pundits in the media alike.  Having taken on an almost sacrosanct definition, this term is no longer deemed a method, but a goal instead. 

No longer can the term be used to describe “something intermediate between different things”, instead it has become a term describing little more than abject surrender. In order for one side or the other to now compromise in political debate, they must give up closely held beliefs, principles, and sometimes even common sense in the name of agreement in a tainted process that can later be lauded by elected officials as if it had meaning. In truth, it no longer matters what such agreement turns out to be, as long as it's reach 'in the bi-partisan spirit of compromise'.

How else should we view the Faustian bargain acclaimed by many on both sides of the aisle as the best compromise that could be reached in regards to raising the debt ceiling. Are we expected to applaud compromise when government celebrates its supposed spending cuts by going on a binge that raises the national debt by over $200 billion in a single day? Shall we cheer the House for whittling and watering down bills passed to the point of uselessness in the spirit of bi-partisanship? Will we commend the Senate for a form compromise that involved refusing to vote on anything? Perhaps we could provide a standing ovation to a chief executive whose idea of compromise is to insult everyone around him and then blame all but himself for not playing nice.

And what's the result of such shoddy compromise, a plan which neither garners the revenue increases that one side insisted upon, nor performs the real spending cuts that the other demanded for agreement. The truth of the matter is that as far as the Debt Ceiling is concerned, this contemptible compromise isn't worth the red ink that it's written in. One might even go so far as to say that the spirit of compromise which this attempts to represent is itself Compromised.  (“to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal...”) 

The concept of compromise in politics has become nothing more than another unpalatable piece of the English language, unsuitable for use in any company, let alone a polite one. In its name the citizens of this country are far too often asked to accept idiotic, pointless, and sometimes downright evil choices in the spirit of something without meaning. The 'Compromises' reached by the Jackasses and Elephants in Washington are now little more than two thieves agreeing on what they consider an equitable split of the loot. Compromise has become so perverted and so offensive in nature that it would be far more accurate to use instead an equally reprehensible word beginning with 'C'; and one that likewise has no place in political discussion in this country, Capitulation.

(All definitions were provided by Dictionary.com.)

TFP Column: American Political Exceptionalism

After an unplanned and unexpected absence for a while, I am back at it with another effort published on the Toledo Free Press website. I wrote this piece in response to the final result of the Debt Ceiling Debate (on which I had written before and hopefully I will not be writing again any time soon), to the whining and clamoring mob seeking to demonize Republicans and Tea Party members for the pitful results achieved in it, and to those (including the President) who have had so much to say about American Exceptionalism recently. It is I believe aptly titled, "American Political Exceptionalism".

Let's face it, there was no exceptionalism that could be credited to this debate, nor is there much to be found in Congress these days on either side of the aisle. Oh sure, there are a few exceptional people in both legislative houses, but they are unfortunately for the nation ... exceptions. The bulk of our national legislature is a steaming mass of ... bi-partisan compromise. (I know, not the term you thought I was going to use, but it's an obscenity nonetheless.) The result is the same however, and is a recipe for the natural fertilizer that allows business as usual to grow and flourish in Washington.

The good news however, is that there are a lot more and better things getting ready to go on in Toledo and NW Ohio (I am particularly aggrieved to be missing the Hibernian Festival). The only way that you're going to know about any of them however, is to spend some time with Toledo's largest circulation and Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

A Curious Celebration of Democracy

While many us have been focusing on the frenetic movement of the stock market, the dwindling value of our retirement portfolios, and the rising national debt; yet another movement has been afoot almost out of sight to subvert the intentions of the Founding Fathers. As reported by McClatchy Newspapers in the Kansas City Star, California Governor Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation that could potentially place Founders' view of the Electoral College in dire jeopardy. 

How can this be, you ask?  Isn't the Electoral College specified in the Constitution under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2?  (I know, you didn't have a clue how the Electoral College came about.  Fortunately for you, I carry a leather-covered pocket edition of this document with me at all times.)  In fact this bit of the Constitution does address how many Electors each state gets, and allows each state legislature to decide how they are chosen.  There are subsequent entries in the 12th and 23rd Amendment covering other aspects of the College.  How those Electors vote after a national election is held however, is something entirely different.

Electors are in fact free to vote for anyone eligible to be President.  Traditionally, Electors vote in proportion to the popular vote of their respective states or for the winner of their respective electoral district (at least on the first ballot).  The idea that the Founders proposed with the formation of the Electoral College was much in keeping with their thinking behind the bicameral legislature created in the same document.  By using the Electoral College as a buffer, they hoped to provide some form of balance between the more populous larger states and smaller ones.  Using the electoral system has allowed swing states like Ohio (20 electors) or Michigan (17 electors) to play at least as much a role as Florida (27 electors), Texas (34 electors), or California (55 electors).  (The fact that none of these states existed at the time that the Constitution was written speaks volumes as to the wisdom of their decision and the Founders ability to deal with future eventualities.) 

Of course the interstate compact now signed by Governor Brown we are told, "would take effect only if states controlling a majority of the nation's electoral votes agree."  I guess that this would make this the a 'pile on the winner' law allowing the votes of other states to influence the electoral vote of CA. Eight states and the District of Columbia have now signed on to this potential compact, an agreement which the article goes on to point out now encompasses "almost half of the electoral votes proponents need".  Certainly this legislation has the potential to create more direct ties to the popular vote ( which is a good thing if you're a state with a population the size of California's).

Now there have been calls to do away with the Electoral College before, most recently after the election of 2000, when George W Bush failed to gain a plurality of the popular vote.  Opponents of the Electoral College claimed that election results like that of 2000 subvert the democratic process and fail to provide a true popular mandate for an elected leader (though it must be admitted that they did at least provide us protection against a potential President Al Gore).  What they fail to point out or perhaps even recognize, is that while we do have the popular vote, the United States is not and never has been a Democracy, but a Representative Republic. The Electoral College was just another in a series of well-thought-out concepts to protect the minority rights in this country from being trampled the 'will of the mob'. (Something that this measure might be overlooking, if not actively subverting.)

California's interest in throwing its 55 vote weight around should be of no surprise to anyone, as they have long felt slighted by the national voting process.  Having their polls closing 3 hours after those of the East Coast and with election coverage by 24-hour news networks calling states while CA is still voting has sometimes caused this bastion of the progressive thinking to find itself extraneous to the decision-making process.  

It's interesting however that these so-called Defenders of Democracy see this as progress towards portraying the will of the people.  If this legislation is followed through on, it would in fact allow California to, "award the state's electoral votes to the candidate winning the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate California voters choose".  One might think it a rather curious contradiction that California and it co-signers would seek to extol the value and virtues of true democracy by potentially subverting the will of the popular vote in their states.

 

Political Personality Disorder

I am currently working my way through P J O'Rourke's latest effort,  "Don't Vote - It Just Encourages The Bastards" (a book whose insight and humor make it one that I would highly recommend). While I'm not one prone to sharing long passages, when I came across this particular one, I found it crying out to be shared with those of you not willing to spend your all too brief leisure time reading books on history and politics. 

I present it for your amusement, enlightenment, and edification without explanation or comment.

"Political power, however, remains the most powerful of powers, so people will continue to be drawn to it.  What kind of people we know too well.  The politician's personality has been brilliantly described.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fanstasy or behavior) need for admiration ... beginning by early adulthood ... as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents and, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration 
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her ends
7. lacks empathy:  is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of other or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. show arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

The authors of the above passage had no idea they were writing about politics.  They thought they were writing about mental illness.  This perceptive analysis of politicians appears on page 717 of the American Psychiatric Association's 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders', fourth edition, under the heading 'Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder'."  

Our Govt Takes Us For Granted Far Too Often

 
I was disturbed, though not surprised, to read a piece in today's Kansas City Star:  "We take our government for granted far too often".  In it Richard Sumpter, an employee of the Environment Protection Agency and adjunct professor at Baker University, takes another reader (and all of the rest of us by extension) to task for not properly appreciating what our government does for us.  The reader in question (correctly) maintained that government erodes self-reliance.  Mr Sumpter quickly decides that at least in his case, self-reliance is an illusion.   Really! 

Conceding for the sake of argument, that the National Bureau of Standards, the EPA, the USDA, and the FCC have some value to citizens (something that I do in the case of the FCC only grudgingly); it does not naturally or necessarily follow that government agencies need to exist as they are today, or that their increasing encroachment on personal freedom is an inherent good.  Neither does it abrogate citizens from their burden of personal responsibility and self-reliance.

If the National Bureau of Standards didn't exist to establish and standardize time zones, would not some private sector organization spring up as it did in the case of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); which performs a similar function for domain names and numbers for websites?  While the EPA (Mr Sumpter's employer) does provide us some protection from dangerous substances, does it not often overstep its bounds in attempting to regulate naturally produced substances like carbon dioxide and methane?  Did USDA regulations protect us from the recent salmonella outbreak from ground turkey; and did Cargill recall the potentially tainted meat under threat from the Dept of Agriculture and the USDA, or from the impending threat of litigation if it didn't?  Does the FCC's continuing efforts at regulation and control of the Internet, radio talk shows (The Fairness Doctrine) or broadcast standards which allow almost limitless violence on television while imposing fines on accidental nudity (Janet Jackson @ the Super Bowl) constitute protection or arbitrary standards.  Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with self-reliance?

Mr Sumpter fails to address the areas of government that in fact have some impact on the fundamental issue on self-reliance that he establishes.  But perhaps he simply finds it inconvenient to discuss how the 'safety net' of Social Security has now become a national pension plan for those not planning for their own future.  Maybe the annoying fact that Medicare and Medicaid have all but destroyed free-market principles in medical care, driving costs up and forcing many to rely on them has escaped his subservient vision.  It's possible that he finds the taxation that fund Welfare, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Utility Bill Support, and Free Cell Phones are not troubling programs creating a dependent class in this country.  We'll never know however, since none of the government attacks on the self-reliance he claims is an illusion are addressed in the sonnet he pens to his employers in Washington.     

Interestingly enough, in a column in the same edition of the Star, E. Thomas McClanahan recognizes the potential issue of government redistribution becoming dependency bordering on addiction by pointing out that, "The U.S. government has become a giant check writing machine, with two-thirds of the federal budget given over to to payments to individuals - "  He goes on to say that, "Last year, government payments made up more than 18 percent of American's personal income, a record."  

No Mr Sumpter, the paved streets and traffic cops you applaud are bought and paid for through taxes, not provided at the largess of the government you want us to give up self-reliance to. So too for clean water and sewers, something for which you, like many others across the country, will be paying increasingly more for in the days ahead.  

Even those of us who continue to 'rage against the machine' recognize the necessity for some government; a strictly limited one based on the protections afforded in the Constitution.  What we vociferously object to however, is the expansion of 'nanny state' policies and agencies full of unelected bureaucrats that continue to attack the basic freedoms and even more basic responsibilities that this country was founded on.  The personal responsibility and self-reliance you say are an illusion are in fact a necessity in any nation that hopes to remain free; far more important that the government-provided conveniences that you believe we take for granted and would like us to applaud.  

I will not suggest ulterior motives to Mr Sumpter's effort, which seems to have been done in good faith.  I will say however that pointing out in the spirit of full disclosure at the end of the piece who his employer is does not negate the potential conflict of interest of a government employee trying to celebrate that institution; and in so doing, protect his own rice bowl.  We can applaud his loyalty without commending his willingness to bow to the increasing theft of personal responsibility by his ultimate employer.  Neither do we need to agree in any way with his invalidation of the self-reliance on which this country was founded.  No Mr Sumpter, your basic premise is not only flawed, it's just plain wrong.  It is our government who takes us for granted far too often.