NOW I understand…Eliminating a tax DECREASE is NOT a tax INCREASE. Thank you Speaker Pelosi.

Thanks for reading, or in this case, viewing.

–Matthew S. Urdan

Related posts:

1. “Pelosi” and “Reid” on SNL The humor in this is so bitter and true that it really hurts. Bipartisanship and respect and cooperation should be a given in the...

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Without going into a critique of all things broken over the past year, CNN is reporting that illegal aliens are now going to be given permanent “Temporary” Visas and all the benefits of US Citizenship…and more. Illegal Immigrants are going to be given complete tax amnesty–they won’t have to pay any back taxes to the IRS. Wow…yet the IRS is still going after United States Tax Payers for the $4 mistake in their 2004 return. Plus interest and penalties. (Another story for another time.)

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Further, the 33,000 gang members at large in 33 of the 50 states are going to be given free college tuition. No state provides free college tuition to its law abiding citizens. All the gangsters need to do is sign a piece of paper that says he or she is no longer in a gang, and the college education is theirs.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Further, we the taxpayer, are going to pay Mexico hundreds of millions of dollars to provide incentives for Mexicans to stay in Mexico. Now this makes sense. Let’s pay Mexico money to improve programs in Mexico to keep Mexicans in Mexico. Now why would the Mexicans who would rather illegally enter the United States and gain immediate access to state-funded health care programs stay in Mexico when the United States is granting citizenship, a guarantee of no back taxes, and free college tuition to gang members? Further, once Obama’s Health Care plan goes into place, all of these illegals will be covered.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Who is going to pay all of this? You and I. And who will suffer? You and I. Not to mention all those who wish to immigrate to the United States legally, and who have gone through the proper channels and have waited in line for years.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

To quote a friend:

This is so insulting. It’s like you have been standing in line at Disney World for 3 hours and a bunch of people jump the fence and get in line ahead of you. Then, instead of kicking them out the manager gives them free tickets for the rides, lunch, a place to stay and coupons for free admission for the rest of their lives.

My fellow Americans and taxpayers, we can not remain quiet. I am urging all of you to flood the White House, the Halls of Congress, and the local offices of your elected officials with every email, tweet, text message, letter, telegram and phone call you are capable of sending. We can not wait for another Town Hall meeting or a staged Obama publicity stunt televised in prime time.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Almost 250 years ago, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Paul Revere and every other famous name you have ever heard or haven’t heard in our country’s history went to war for independence and freedom from tyranny and to eliminate taxation without representation.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Well, here we are, crying out against taxation without representation. Congress did not listen to us about the TARP. Congress did not listen to us about various other post-TARP Bailouts and spending packages disguised as “Stimulus.” Congress did not listen to us regarding health care at Town Hall Meetings where the citizens were more informed than our own elected “representatives.” If we don’t speak up as loud as we possibly can, each and every one of us, Congress won’t listen to us about this.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

It is taxation without representation. Even though we elect our Representatives and Senators, when was the last time one of them returned a phone call to you, returned an email to you, or even sent you something other than a non-responsive form letter in response to a carefully written letter you wrote? The truth is that they don’t care what we think. All they care about is scaring us into voting for them by painting their political opponent into a lying, adulterous, soft-on-crime incompetent villain. WHERE is the HONOR in that. WHERE is the RESPECT for the PRESIDENT of the United States of America? Do you remember last year when someone threw a shoe at President Bush? Well just recently, not a single Russian Diplomat would even shake President Obama’s hand. How far has America already fallen? How did we get this way? By playing favorites. By allowing a privileged class to exist at the expense of the Middle Class. And now, by offering free to lawbreakers and gangsters what so many of us have worked so hard for all of our lives.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Congress doesn’t care about you or I. Congress doesn’t care about our well-being. Congress doesn’t care about the well-being and the financial security of our nation. All congress cares about is finding another way to give themselves a raise and to ensure their own re-election by negative campaigning, pointing fingers at the other party and by using every scare tactic they can learn from Hollywood horror films to scare us all into submission.

Look at what Congress is about to do and form your own conclusion. Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC.

Go to http://www.congress.org. If you don’t know who your representatives and senators are and/or how to reach them, this link will give you all of their office phone numbers and addresses. Don’t waste another day. If you were mad about $4.00/gallon gas prices, if you were mad about the wasted taxpayer money from Katrina, if you were mad about the TARP, if you were mad about any of the bailouts and lack of accountability from AIG and Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, if you are mad about health care or how Americans are being ignored and mistreated at Town Hall Meetings, don’t waste another day.

Watch the CNN News Video. This is CNN. Not Fox. Not MSNBC. Draw your own conclusions.

Don’t be submissive anymore. This is taxation without representation. We can not allow Congress to pass this legislation. We can not afford all the social and financial consequences. As a nation, as states, as individuals.

And if you detect some passion in my language, well, I think the quote comes from Hollywood: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Thanks for reading.

–Matthew S. Urdan

Related posts:

1. WSJ Reports Travel Industry Slams Obama for Limits on Business Travel Elizabeth Williamson of the Wall Street Journal reports that The travel industry is taking aim at Democrats’ efforts to limit luxury travel by companies that...
2. Can we change our government when we want? [caption id="" align="left" width="288" caption="Spirit - American Revolution"][/caption]This was the question posed to me at my own blog by Monica from Oh Fer Cryin’ Out...
3. What is a Filibuster? [caption id="" align="left" width="350" caption="US Capitol Building at Night"][/caption] While the big news of the week has been the historic election of Barack Obama as...

Harrison @ Just Politics..?

Related posts:

1. Cash for Clunkers, an Idea Tried Already in Germany [caption id="" align="alignleft" width="250" caption="Old Toyota? No, up to $4,500.00!"][/caption] In the United States, finding a car owner is a pretty easy task.  In fact,...

Old Toyota? No, up to $4,500.00!

In the United States, finding a car owner is a pretty easy task.  In fact, according to a 2006 study by the Department of Transportation, there were 250,851,833 registered vehicles in America.  A very large percentage of these owners also vote so it would be a natural connection to draw a line between car owners, voters, and politicians eager to curry their favor.  As such, the Cash for Clunkers bill is making its way through Congress right now.  The bill, if it becomes law, will surely change from its present form but would, in essence, give an owner of a vehicle registered for at least one year up to $4,500.00 from the U.S. government if traded in on a new, more fuel efficient model.  The money to pay for this program, an estimated $7 billion, would come from the already-signed $787 billion stimulus program signed into law by President Obama earlier this year.

Supporters of this bill maintain that it will reduce American’s dependence upon foreign oil by allowing consumers to buy vehicles that get better mileage than their current cars do, will stimulate automobile sales at a time of decreasing sales, and will remove “gross polluting” vehicles from circulation.   “Cash for Clunkers” has already been tried in Germany, in fact, and some of what supporters claim has, in fact, happened.  The plan has boosted car sales in Germany and business for junkyards (cars turned in under the program must be scrapped to qualify for the money).  As a result of the program (in Germany it was more modest adding up to only $3,320.00 in maximum per vehicle) sales in April of 2009 were up 18% versus the year before.

On the negative side, careful study of the program showed that up to 75% of the money went towards people who would have bought a car anyway and, during the same time the program was in force, retail sales dropped 1.5% that German stores blamed on consumers’ shifting their spending from products to vehicles in order to take advantage of the program.

So is this program right for the United States and what side-effects can be expected from it?

As somebody who has worked in automotive sales for the previous six years I know the industry fairly well from an insider’s perspective.  My experience has been that when a special incentive is offered (either by a manufacturer, a bank, or a government) car dealers suffer from the famine-feast-famine syndrome.  What is this?  Basically, when consumers catch wind of a possibly upcoming special program they will delay their purchases (the famine part) and sales dry up.  Once the program is in force there is an orgy of spending as consumers seek to cash in on the free money.  Once the program ends or all of the consumers who could have bought did buy sales taper off to nothing as those customers who would have bought cars over the next 1-6 months are pulled out of the market early.  In short, the side effects of such programs can often be worse than what the condition was before as the normal buying cycle is altered.

One effect of this program which was definitely felt in Germany was where German tax money was going.  Germans build many fine automobiles but most of them are not known for being very fuel efficient (Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz come to mind).  So when Germans were given their $3,320.00 credit many of them took it to foreign brands such as Ford, Opel, and Renault.  Many economists questioned whether using German tax money to support company’s from other countries was wise.  Many Volkswagen dealers did benefit from the program, but companies like Porsche did not (Porsche said not one of its cars was sold through the program).

In the United States, one of the biggest arguments in favor of this program is the environmental benefits it will have (replacing gas guzzlers with fuel sippers).  Unforuntately, as with any government-developed program, special interests have swooped in to seek maximum benefit for themselves and the Cash for Clunkers bill is getting more and more watered down as regards fuel efficiency standards.  For example, trade in a car and buy a new one that gets only 4mpg more and you get $3,500.00 but for SUVs and trucks you only need to improve your mileage by 2mpg, not a difficult task.

In theory, the program could produce many benefits for consumers, automotive sales people (not the ones at high line dealers generally though), automakers, and junkyard operators but, in reality, this program is more likely to create the famine-feast-famine cycle mentioned above.

 Harrison @ Just Politics..?

Related posts:

1. Follow Up: Cash for Clunkers Kills Donation for Cars In a follow-up to an earlier article regarding this government program (nearly $3 billion right now) it appears that the hardest hit group are charity...

The "famous" handshake.

The Obama-Chavez handshake got a lot of press.  The Left seemed pleased, the Right enraged.  Conservatives probably saw all of the “hard work” former President George W. Bush did taking a tough stand against dictators as having been given away so early into a new administration.  If you believe that Bush’s position was a wise one, it is easy to see why Conservatives would feel this way.  After all, people like Chavez are repugnant and, like the leaders of Iran and North Korea, they are not too friendly towards the freedoms that Americans hold dear.  Chavez did, after all, shut down a television station because they didn’t support his policies as well as many other things.

But is Obama’s embracing of these people really so terrible?  The short answer is: we won’t know for many years.

Barack Obama campaigned on bringing a change to American foreign policy and, indeed, he has done so.  George W. Bush’s policy of not talking to people like the Iranian president may have been morally justified but was it wise?  In shutting out people like Iran’s president Bush prevented any sort of progress from happening unless it started on their end first.  These leaders have staked their reputation on opposing America at every turn.  Indeed, it has become the red meat that they base their support on even as their economies crumble, all the while blaming America so as to deflect blame from their own shortcomings.  In embracing these leaders and showing that the United States does not necessarily view them as being evil President Obama does remove some of this power.  This is the good part.  The bad part is that we will not know for several years whether this policy of openness will result in our “enemies” taking advantage of us because they view communication as a sign of weakness.

It seems that critics like to point to President Jimmy Carter’s naive view of engagement as the “Obama model” while holding up President Ronald Reagan’s hardline stance as being the gold standard.  After all, Jimmy Carter didn’t do too well with foreign leaders while he was in office.  The Shah of Iran was deposed and a more brutal regime replaced him and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan which led to the Taliban and, not long after, al Qaeda while Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire” stance led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union in 1989.  But times have changed somewhat.

New best friends?

The Soviet Union was, like the United States, a superpower with many of the same abilities and goals as the United States in terms of needing to project power whereas countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela do not have the size nor the projection of power that the Soviet Union had.  So the comparisons are not “apples to apples” although certainly all four countries did not have leadership which was inclined towards friendly relations with the United States. 

One thing we have seen under the “Bush Doctrine” of shunning unpleasant regimes is that these leaders have struck up alliances with one another so as to attempt to either counter-balance or make the U.S. believe there is a counter-balance to our friendly relationships.   Bush called this the “Axis of Evil” and, while I believe he was correct, his strategy did not produce any regime change in those countries.  If anything, he allowed those leaders to show that their hardened views of the United States were justified.

Right now President Obama is still in his honeymoon stage with American voters and world leaders.  This period cannot last once he begins to make defining decisions regarding Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and Russia.  President Obama was not, despite his vast amounts of charm, able to secure any real concessions from European leaders during the recent G20 summit which was a telling example of how, even with our “friends” it is not really about “cowboy” diplomacy under Bush versus Obama’s “Apology Tour” as, if it were, then countries like Germany and France would have agreed to put their troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan or accept Gitmo detainees.

So if our “friends” didn’t feel like helping President Obama out how will our “enemies” do better?  This is the central issue in Obama’s approach towards foreign policy.  Relationships take time to blosom and so do results but leaders such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad rule with a different set of responsibilities towards their “voters” than to leaders such as Sarkozy and Merkel.  Indeed, Chavez and Ahmadinejad have less responsibility towards following the wills of their people so it appears unlikely that they will change their behavior.

While it is too early to tell what the results will be of President Obama’s efforts the evidence suggests that not much will really change even if the volume of hate may decrease.

President Obama is rolling the dice on not being seen as a weakling when it comes towards standing up for the interests of the United States but, then again, much could be said of George W. Bush when he cut off many countries from his speed dial.

- Harrison @ Just Politics..?

No related posts.

328-93 was the final vote on that measure in the House of Representatives last Monday, and December 10th was the date that the bill’s catalyst—the story about continued AIG bonuses—broke. Fifteen is the number of weeks that President Obama allowed populist anger at Wall St. spending to mature before he forced Congress into action, and 15% is the amount his national approval rating dropped over that period.

Rick Wagoner is the name of the former General Motors (GM) CEO who was asked to resign by Mr Obama’s automobile task-force during a meeting last Friday—the same day that Mr Obama met with chief-executives from Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley, criticizing them for failing to grasp the financial crisis’ magnitude. That day, March 28th—when Mr Obama decidedly took the reins of Detroit and downtown Manhattan—will mark the president’s shift in policy toward bailed-out American companies from financially interventionist to outwardly managerial.

Populist anger results from any recession, and Mr Obama likely knows that. In the Great Depression such anger was directed at President Hoover and his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon; in the post-dot com recession it was directed at Jeffrey Skilling of Enron and John Rigas of Adelphia Communications; now it’s being directed at Bernie Madoff, executives on Wall St. and workers in Detroit. And before March 28th, it was being directed at Mr Obama and the 111th Congress.

Since then Mr Obama and his advisors seem to have had a revelation. In forcing Mr Wagoner from GM and announcing that Chrysler would have only thirty days of funding during which it may negotiate a merger with Italian automobile manufacturer, Fiat, or declare bankruptcy, Mr Obama has recognized that the populists who elected him last year on the platform of change wanted just that—change—and his campaign promises for change amounted to a collective ultimatum: corporate bloodshed or Mr Obama’s presidential approval rating.

Mr Obama chose the approval rating, and Mr Wagoner was that decision’s first casualty. The second ought to be either Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli—who will likely be out of a job within the month—or AIG chairman Edward Liddy—who has come under fire for his tendency to reward employee loyalty. Thus the ousting of Mr Wagoner can be seen not as a double standard in the president’s treatment of Wall St. and Detroit as some have suggested, but rather as a sympathetic reminder to Americans that Mr Obama is listening and a warning to banking executives that they could be next—that is—that he’s also listening to what’s being said about them. The fact that many are confused by what amounted to Mr Wagoner’s dismissal—that he was never directly accused by the Obama administration of actually mismanaging his company—only makes this warning a more potent one.

-David Lamb

No related posts.

Presidents from Monroe to Obama have used Signing Statements.

For my last article I explored the issue of Executive Orders and the Executive Branch.  The bookend to this subject is something a bit more controversial: Signing Statements.  According to The American Presidency Project, Signing Statements are:

“Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs.  The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional.”

Just as Executive Orders have not always been known as such, the same is true with Signing Statements.  In 1822 President James Monroe issued what we today call a Signing Statement saying that “he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority.”

One justification for presidents to use a Signing Statement, according to a recent memo issued by the Obama Administration is:

Congress these days often passes omnibus bills. If a big bill has only a few problematic parts, a president has to choose between vetoing the whole bill, or agreeing to enforce provisions he believes to be unconstitutional.

During the Presidency of George W. Bush much was made in the press of his use of Signing Statements even though his predecessor, Bill Clinton, actually issued more of them.  The objections to the Signing Statements that former President George W. Bush issued seemed to be that he was using them to “expand presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government.”  Some of his more controversial Signing Statements had to do with warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, and rules and regulations for military prisons.  These objections were answered by saying that because the president is also “Commander in Chief” of the military he is authorized to oversee how these affairs are conducted.

To be sure, the times after September 11, 2001 were rocky and uncharted waters for the United States and its three branches of government.  Many said that the expansion of Executive authority was to the detriment of the U.S. Constitution while others said that they were implicit powers that needed to be exercised if the United States were to successfully fight the forces that battled against the country.

During the presidential campaign of 2008 Barack Obama said that he would not employ Signing Statements.  According to an editorial in the New York Times:

As a candidate, Barack Obama offered withering criticism of President Bush’s signing statements — declarations that he would not enforce parts of the bills he signed.

Once candidate Obama became President Obama, the situation changed quite a bit:

President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.

In the statement — directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation — Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers.

It seems that, in general, the view of the Executive Branch and Signing Statements looks one way from outside of the White House but, once you’re sitting in the Oval Office things look differently.  Considering the challenges this country faces and the massive all-encompassing bills that Congress sends to the White House, Signing Statements probably have a fairly secure future, objections and all.

- H. Price Jessup, Jr.

Related posts:

1. Executive Orders and the Law In a Representative Democracy such as the United States, most people are familiar with what a law is, many people know how a bill differs...

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, they are capitalism, communism, fascism, marxism, and socialism. Please note, these are in alphabetical order - so as not to imply favoritism to any of these philosophies.  While everyone I have come across seems to understand the basic principles behind capitalism (whether they agree or disagree) the primary confusion seems to be between the other four.  There are some similarities, but they are distinct philosophies.

The “isms” will be presented in alphabetical order as well.  The way I will lay this out is to first give you the actual definition of the term and I will follow that up with a brief discussion regarding the origins and the individuals instrumental for advancing these philosophies.

I will give you fair warning - this is a fairly lengthy post.  However, it is well worth your time to read it.  I guarantee you will learn more about these “isms” than you ever thought you knew.  I guarantee you will have a clearer understanding of the “isms” and will be able to use them in a more scholarly manner and will have the tools necessary to correct those who only think they understand them.

Capitalism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s is:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Usually, for those who study economics and are devout believers in capitalism, Milton Friedman, John Keynes, and Friedrich Hayek are the names that comes to mind. However, before I get in to them, you might be surprised to learn that capitalism actually has its origins in the middle-ages with Rome and the Middle-East. Up until the European Enlightenment period when the term “capitalism” was actually coined, the earliest form was called “mercantilism.” Mercantilism was defined as the distribution of goods in order to realize a profit.

It wasn’t until the 1300’s when Europeans were sailing the world for the purpose of expanding their mercantile practices that the term “capitalism” was finally developed and used as an economic philosophy.  It was during this period that capitalism became a way of thinking, so to speak.

Fast forward to the early 20th Century - enter John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek.  While both have firm roots in capitalism, each had their own ideas regarding the inner mechanisms that should drive capital, investments, money, and economic growth.  The entire premise behind capitalism is that markets should be free from any government and political influence in order to continue economic growth.  A true capitalist free-market system has no barriers to growth, ergo capitalist nations would continue to become wealthier.

The idea behind Keynesian economics is that in a capitalist system the private sector will make errors that lead to inefficiencies.  As such, Keynes advocated that government should step in to create public policy and the central bank should step in to create monetary policies.

Hayek took a libertarian stance on capitalism and the free-market.  He studied business and monetary cycles and was influential, and somewhat controversial at the time since Keynesian economics was all the rage, as his beliefs were essentially that any government interference in a capitalist society would lead to socialism and ultimately to totalitarianism.  His was a direct argument against Keynesian economic models.

Milton Friedman advanced the notion that, counter to Keynes,  monetarism should be the driving force behind economic policy in a capitalist society.  In short, by manipulating the money supply prices, inflation, and employment could be controlled, and if done correctly, reduce inflation, increase employment, and stabilize prices.

I encourage you to follow the links to read more on these three individuals as I have provided but a snippet.  These three individuals were the leading economists and philosophers of their time having been award Nobel prizes and Nobel Laureates.  Their works are more broad than what I have presented here.

Communism is defined as:

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.

2capitalized

a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.

d: communist systems collectively.

Communism - the evil of all evils! Right? Remember the slogans? “Better red than dead!” Well, when you look at the origins of communism, you wonder where it went astray as communism would almost make sense. If you look at the root word - commune - it would illicit a sense of community, harmony, friendship, symbiosis, etc. Communal property and symbiotic relationships are actually at the core of communism.

One of the earliest supporters of communism was Plato - the Greek philosopher. Communism also has roots in religion as well.  Under earlier forms of Judaism and Christianity, property ownership was considered evil because God created this earth for one and all.  There are many communes existing today in Israel - these are known as Kibutzim or Kibutzes.  However, communism at its earliest origins is completely different than modern communism.

Three key figures in modern communism are Francois Babeuf, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels.  Their actions, activities, and philosophy are at the very heart of modern-day communism.

Francois Babeuf, a political journalist, wrote Manifesto of the Equals in 1796 and was one of the key supporters and organizers within the French Revolution.  His manifesto supported an egalitarian system of where all property and labor were shared equally.  He formed an underground society in hopes to overthrow the government citing the original revolution did not go far enough.  The earliest form of communism was actually “Babouvism.”

Karl Marx - a German philosopher considered the father of communism and socialism. Marx, along with Engels, wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 (considered the founding documents of Communism similar to the American Constitution) which elevated the working class through equal distribution of productivity and equal share of property.  He is most quoted as stating “From each his own according to his own ability to each according to his needs.”  This is the basis for wealth redistribution.  His manifesto was a direct attack on capitalism and the Bourgeois upper class.

If you read the manifesto it sounds like a great idea.  However, since he never outlined a plan as to the structure and mechanisms for living in a communist society, I don’t think he could ever have imagined that the ideas put forth in his manifesto would be developed in to an authoritarian system where the political elite enslaved the working class.  The modern communist systems are the complete opposite of what he proposed.  His philosophy was about removing the class system altogether where all men were truly equal.

Friedrich Engels - another German philosopher - was the co-author with Marx on the Communist Manifesto.  He met Marx when he moved to Paris.  As with Marx, he too was a strong supporter of the working class and was determined to abolish the class system.  He was responsible for the editing the 2nd and 3rd editions of the Communist Manifesto after Marx died.  It was Engels who actually furthered the theory of Marxism.  Interestingly, Engels came from an upper-class family of textile owners.  In fact, he owned his own cotton textile business.  Even while collaborating with Marx - he continued to profit from his business and used this profits to finance Marx.

Engels was the founder of the Communist League in 1847 - a year before the manifesto was written. Both Marx and Engels believed that revolution was necessary in order to bring about an egalitarian order and often help to organize such revolutions with the working class.  Essentially, if it weren’t for Engels, the Marxist form of socialism and communism would never have advanced.

Fascism is defined as:

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

There are three key individuals involved in the advancement of fascism, Benito Mussolini,  Adolf Hitler, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).  Fascism actually has its origins in both socialism and capitalism and is considered contrary to communism. Fascism is the state control over private industry where the productivity of the working class is for the benefit of the state.  The state provides for the working class in exchange for their labor by way of a minimum wage, socialized health care, labor unions, and forced retirement.  The Fascist ideology was the first to implement a progressive tax on capital.

Bernito Mussolini is actually responsible for the development and initial advancement of the modern-day form of fascism as a result of his Manifesto Fascismo (written in 1919) or as it was originally titled The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle. Mussolini was actually a member of the socialist party at the time he came to power in 1922.  He removed himself from the Socialist Party and took control over all forms of industry, churches and church property, and the monetary system.  Under his authority, Italy came under military rule where Mussolini took over as a dictator.  While it appeared that a market based economy was still in place, the state dictated what and how much businesses would produce and the state set the prices.

Fascism is also akin to corporatism in which government representation was based on trade and industry.  Cartels are set up under a fascist system and each cartel had representation in the government.  It is because of this that some people, still today, associate capitalists as fascists.  Under fascism, there are no capitalists.  The misconception is that fascism is the corporate control of government when it fact it is the complete opposite.

Adolf Hitler - I think we all know exactly what Hitler did.  I think it also well known that Hitler and Mussolini were great allies.  However, in 1933 Hitler adopted the Fascist ideology of Mussolini and took control of all private industry in Germany.

The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.

Essentially, Hitler did away with all small businesses and corporations and instituted mandatory membership in cartels that were overseen by the Nazi Party Labor Front board. As a result, there was a mandatory 2-year labor conscription for the good of the fatherland - which ultimately led to national conscription in to one of the many military components.

FDR was an admirer of Mussolini - so much so that he publicly praised Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy.” FDR also stated that he kept in close contact with Mussolini on a regular basis. In fact, many of the elements of the New Deal were directly based on a fascist system of economics:  Social Security, Medicare, progressive taxes on capital, state control of private industry.  Here are a few quotes that clearly, when compared to the definitions and origins of fascism, show he was a proponent of these ideas:

Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.

I do not believe in communism any more than you do, but there is nothing wrong with the communists in this country. Several of the best friends I have are Communists.

A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he has a university education he may steal the whole railroad.

FDR instituted anti-competition policies and enforced pro-labor/union policies in to the economic model that helped drag out the Great Depression for as long as seven years. While FDR did not become an actual dictator as our Constitution would actually have prevented that from happening, he nevertheless instituted several fascist based policies under his Presidency. He was able to wrest control from private industries through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). Essentially, he forced businesses to unionize or be threatened with government initiated anti-trust lawsuits.  By 1934 80% of non-agricultural private businesses were unionized.  As a result of these union businesses, wages increased 25%  and the costs of consumer goods increased by 23% - making them unaffordable for average Americans during the economic downturn.

If you really want to get an idea of his approval and acceptance of socialism and fascism, and his antipathy towards capitalism, you only need to read or listen to his inaugural address.  It sounds very familiar doesn’t it?

Marxism is defined as:

The political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx ; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

I guess I probably don’t need to go in to the origins and details of Marxism again seeing as how it is a doctrine directly named after Karl Marx that was discussed above. However, what I will add that one of the main premises regarding Marxism is that revolution is considered a necessary element for the institution of Marxism in a capitalist system.
Socialism is defined as:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Socialism was borne from the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in which the working class (the Proletariat) formed an uprising against the industrial elite (the Bourgeios). However, it was half a century later when the actual term “socialism” was beginning to widely become accepted. Based on my research the term has been attributed to several individuals: Pierre Leroux, Marie Rouch Louis Reybald, and/or Robert Owen. Exactly who is still under discussion.

The individuals most associated with the socialist movement are comte de Saint Simon, Robert Owen, and Pierre-Joseph Proudon. (I bet you thought Marx was included here!) Actually, Marx just furthered the cause of socialism and further defined socialism as the step between capitalism and communism.

comte de Saint Simon - or more formerly known as Claude Henri de Rouvroy - is considered to be the father of French socialism.  He was a philosopher and socialist utopian.  Saint Simon was actually Marx’s inspiration.  In Saint Simon’s vision of a socialist utopia he saw a “new christianity” where all traditional religions were abolished in favor of philosophers, scientists, and engineers.  In his socialist utopia, production and labor were controlled by the scientists with the purpose of producing those things that wre useful in life. Interestly, Saint Simon was another of the Bourgeois elite, as with Engels.  However, he died a poor man.

Because of Saint Simon’s views on socialism and science it was he who actually is responsible for today’s social sciences.  He had hoped to elevate the study of society to that of natural and traditional sciences.

Robert Owen was another of the industrial elite/business owners turned social utopian. However, his business model for operating his textile factory was based on social engineering.  He created a town around his business (New Lanark) where all members contributed equally in the production of his business and all of his employees were taken care of.

He attempted to create several of these communities, or what he called, Villages of Cooperation.  However, there was no democratic input in to the operations of the business by his employees. When his social experiment did not succeed in Britain, he moved to the United States.  His own brand of socialism “Owenism” became widely known in the U.S..  In 1819 he started one of his Villages of Cooperation and called it New Harmony in Indiana.  There were about ten of these communities throughout the U.S.  However, these social experiments also failed as American workers were used to having democratic input and did not appreciate his authoritarian style.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - considered a socialist anarchist. His view on property ownership was that it was theft.  He believed in the advancement of communitarianism (not communism) and equal division of labor and property among the community to include a democratic form of authority.  He wanted to see the “state” abolished as well.  One could say that Proudhon was a very pure socialist.  Proudhon eventually surpassed Marx as one of the leading left thinking intellectuals and was inspiration to many of the notorious anarchists (Tolstoy, Bakunin, etc.).

Two poignant quotes from Proudhon pretty much sums up his philosphy:

labour alone is the basis of value, but that this nevertheless does not give the labourer a right to property, since his labour does not create the material out of which the product is made. ‘The right to products is exclusive; the right to means is common’.”

and

“The right to life implies a right to the means of life, and that rule of justice which demands respect for the life of an innocent man also demands that he not be deprived of the means of life: these two rights are equally sacred…To prevent the labour of another is the same sort of injustice as putting him in chains or throwing him into prison, and it provokes the same resentment.”

You will note that each of these three figures were at one time followers of Christianity.  Over time, as they accepted socialism, they abolished God from their lives as well. For them, organized religion was just as much a chain shackling man as was industry.

So, there you have it.  I have laid out the “isms” as best as possible in hopes of clarifying the philosophies and the individuals that helped to advance them.  I hope you have a better understanding of this knowledge and will use it wisely!  I highly encourage you to follow the links throughout this post to get a better understanding yourselves.  There is a wealth of information out there beyond what I have provided in this discussion.

Bob O

No related posts.

The Tea Party concept, of course, gets its name from the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773 when colonial Americans said to George III of England that the colonists would not accept any further taxes imposed by the Crown unless they had representation in Parliament and were able to speak on and vote on all issues. The colonists just wanted a seat at the decision table. When George III denied the colonists that seat, revolution was all but assured.

Strangely, as citizens of the United States with elected representatives in Congress, we find ourselves in a position very similar to colonial Americans almost 250 years ago. While we elect our representatives and senators and technically their votes reflect our wishes, increasingly they pass legislation and increase taxes without checking with their constituents.

On Saturday, Inside Government posted the article When Representatives Don’t Represent Their Constituents. Even though Americans call their representatives, write their representatives, email their representatives, increasingly it’s become the norm that the representatives’ staffs just send out a form letter response with boilerplate language that does not address the concerns of the citizens that took time to write to their representatives to express their views. When Congress passed the first $800 Billion Bailout, known as the TARP last October, the American people were overwhelmingly against this bill 9-1. But it didn’t matter. The few in power, probably needing the banking industry’s financial support for their reelection campaigns, passed the bailout anyway. Outrage followed immediately not just because Congress went against the wishes of the American people, but because that money was squandered and instantly used for purposes other than what were authorized in the TARP, much to the chagrin of various Senators such as Richard Burr of North Carolina.

The Tea Parties that are popping up across the American landscape are a potent reactionary response to the unconscionable realization that our representatives are acting counter to the wishes of the American people. We all know the economy is bad and many of us are suffering financially. However, the American people don’t believe that socialistic programs, an expansion of government, and out-of-control spending that will leverage our children’s future is the correct response to the deep recession we are in. Hence the call for a Nationwide Tea Party on April 15th, 2009.

It’s unconscionable that the leaders we elect to run all aspects of our government see their election as a mandate and a blank check to work on and pass legislation that doesn’t reflect the wishes of the people that elected them, but that is exactly how our elected leaders are acting. And as long as they remain unresponsive to the wishes of the American people, the question to be asked is not really: “Has it really come to this, that Americans are rising up and calling for revolution?” but rather “Why have Americans waited so long?”

You can read more about the Boston Tea Party in these excellent articles from Eyewitness to History, Wikipedia, and the Boston Tea Party Historical Society.

Thanks for reading.

-Matthew S. Urdan

Related posts:

1. Inauguration Party Like No Other As if the jubilation from the Democratic National Convention, where Barack Obama made history winning the Democratic Party Nomination for President, has never ended, more...
2. CNN Reports Massive Benefits for Illegal Aliens at US Taxpayer Expense Inside Government hasn’t posted much over the last few months. That’s because this site was instituted to explain how the U.S. Government works. The trouble...
3. Obama: “It’s Too Late to Save Economy” [caption id="" align="left" width="209" caption="Economy in Flames"][/caption]USA Today reported on January 8th that President-Elect Barack Obama was about to give a speech on the state...

The President of the United States is the head of the Executive Branch and he or she has some explicit powers and some gray ones.  The president can, for example, lead the country in making decisions regarding foreign affairs, nominate individuals for the Supreme Court, or in the role as “commander-in-chief ” lead the military.  But the president’s authority is not absolute as any treaty he or she negotiates with a foreign power must still be approved by Congress, nominees to the Supreme Court must be confirmed by the Senate, and any troop deployments over 60 days must be authorized by Congress due to the War Powers Resolution.  So, while the power of the president seems great it is, like virtually every other area of the U.S. government, subject to checks and balances.  One area in which the president can have a great deal of power is in the area of the Executive Order.

Originally, executive orders based their legitimacy on Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the phrase “he [the President of the United States] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This phrase was interpreted as a management tool, a way for the president to enforce Congress’s wishes. Almost immediately, presidents tried to widen the scope of the short phrase. For instance, George Washington proclaimed a “neutrality order” that declared that Americans must not be involved in disputes between foreign countries; this was not the execution of a law but the creation of a law.

President Washington issued a total of eight Executive Orders during his time in office.  Not all Executive Orders were as dry as Washington’s.  One of the more controversial Executive Orders was issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 when he “ordered the “’removal of resident enemy aliens’ from parts of the West vaguely identified as ‘military areas.’”  In other words, FDR had internment camps set-up for Japanese-Americans, with one of the more notable residents being George Takei who later played Lieutenant Sulu on Star Trek.  President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order in 1976 prohibiting the Executive Branch from reinstituting FDR’s internment order even though a new Executive Order could be later drafted reversing that decree!

It may seem odd that for a nation so based on limiting the power of one branch of government that the president can, in effect, create laws that are so sweeping.  Looking back at the origins of the United States, however, it becomes clear that in the 18th and for much of the 19th Centuries transportation was poor and long range communications were not easily possible so, for those times when Congress was not in session, decisions still needed to be made regarding the Federal Government.  It does pose an interesting question whether, had the Constitution been written today, the Founding Fathers would have granted the president such leeway.

Should an Executive Order meet with enough resistance either from the public or from Congress, it is possible to reverse it.  In effect, Congress “may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act” or a lawsuit may be brought challenging the Executive Order.  In the latter case, FDR’s Japanese internment camp Executive Order was challenged, twice, but was upheld both times by the U.S. Supreme Court while President Harry Truman’s Executive Order to seize control of steel mills to settle a labor dispute was overturned.

Executive Orders can be a method for the president to move the country into a better, more inclusive way as when “Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting.”  In other cases, Executive Orders follow the doctrine of the political party of the president who issues them as was the case with President Ronald Reagan who issued an Executive Order barring Federal funds from being used to advocate the use of abortion (the Republican party is generally against abortion) while President Bill Clinton signed an Executive Order reversing this policy (the Democratic party is generally not against abortion).

Out of all of the presidents the United States has had, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most Executive Orders (3,522) while John Adams, James Madison, and James Monroe issued the fewest (1 each).

Most recently in the news was President Barrack Obama’s Executive Order to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba which reversed the policy of President George W. Bush who established the camp after September 11, 2001.

Due to the fact that the President of the United States leads the nation he or she is generally given a wide latitude when signing an Executive Order into law but, because this power is not explicitly given by either the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the later amendments there will always be the possibility for controversy depending upon the mood of the country and which political party is in power.  As we have seen in this article, Executive Orders do place enormous power in the hands of one person, the president, and because they can have important implications for the country, they should be better understood by American citizens.

For more reading about Executive Orders and to see ones that have been signed you may visit this excellent site run by the National Archive in Washington, D.C.

- H. Price Jessup, Jr.

Related posts:

1. What Is an Executive Order? If you’ve been following the beginnings of the transition of leadership from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, you’ve probably heard about a lot of...
2. Signing Statements and the Presidency [caption id="" align="left" width="216" caption="Presidents from Monroe to Obama have used Signing Statements."][/caption] For my last article I explored the issue of Executive Orders and...
3. The President’s “Cabinet” Since the election ended on Tuesday, there has been a lot of talk about President-elect Obama establishing his cabinet.  The term cabinet refers to...