My We the People Experience: The Importance of Liberty

I wrote this essay for my college application process...it had some politics in it, so I figured I'd post it here...enjoy!!

Presenting before a panel of three complete strangers, all constitutional scholars, is certainly no walk in the park.  We had been preparing for this day for months.  We were finally in Washington, DC, participating in the national competition for We the People; an organization designed to familiarize students with the teachings of the United States Constitution, and its message of liberty.  Participating in this activity not only helped me become more cognizant of US legal history, it also taught me how to work effectively in a group, and was key in establishing my set of values and goals.

             

Leading up to the competition in Washington, my four teammates and myself had quite a bit of work to do.  Besides preparing speeches, researching court cases, and developing arguments, we had to learn how to work as a group.  Most of us were strangers.  The ideological spectrum in my group was very wide as well.  Between intense arguments ranging from citizenship to abortion, we managed to accomplish our goals.  Additionally, with the assistance of University of Iowa law students and We the People alumni, we were able to peacefully overcome our differences.  In Washington, nervously sitting in front of the judges, prepared for our six minutes of unscripted cross-examination, we knew each other well enough to provide succinct, thought out responses—albeit with a few disagreements along the way.

           

Researching the history of the founding period had the greatest impact on my sets of values and goals.  Participating in We the People required us to not simply read the founding documents, but to understand the arguments behind Hamilton and Madison’s Federalist Papers, Jefferson’s Declaration, and the Constitution.  Delving into Supreme Court history, and spending a gratuitous amount of time on news sites, has given me the background to make more informed decisions based upon the Constitution—and not just on partisan talking points.  The class taught me that rights of the accused are just as important as the right to free speech and press, and that states’ rights are fundamental to the success of the Union.  Walking into that class, I was looking at medical programs at colleges and universities.  Walking out of that class, I am looking at law programs.  The class taught me to be appreciative of our rights and freedoms, and to never take them for granted.  As an adult, I hope to be able to defend those rights for other citizens.

My Thoughts on the GOP Debate

So I was going to write an article on Federalism, but I'll put that off for later...I thought I'd put my thoughts out there on how each candidate did tonight...

Santorum: Made me sleepy.  He has quite a bit of gall to call himself a Conservative.  He supports national marriage standards, abortion standards, and is an all around social statist.  I'm opposed to both aforementioned issues, but the states know those issues best.

Cain: I love his business experience, but the pundits didn't spend much time on him, unfortunately.  He needs to be more specific, though.

Paul: You know my thoughts on the libertarian doctrine...I felt his non-interventionist position was a nice contrast, but when Iran came up, I stopped listening.  To suggest that the nation is not a threat is ignorant.  I really liked his closing statement, though...a nice summary.

Romney: I've never been a Romney supporter, I feel that allowing Romney-Care is a sign of failed leadership.  His response to h/care was the best it could be, but the fact he even signed it shows he isn't a great Conservative.  His jobs message was good, though.  His business experience is quite appealing.

Bachmann: A standout at the last debate, she didn't shine quite as much tonight.  I like her 10th Amendment driven statements.  The press doesn't like her, and it's obvious.  Why bring up her marriage or migraines? They purposefully got her and Pawlenty into an argument--to get the party off the message of "defeat Obama." She crushed Pawlenty, though.

Pawlenty: I fell asleep when he talked.  He has no right to call out Bachmann--she is a much stronger leader.  He's mad because he's losing, and he's going to be out after the Straw Poll on Saturday.

Huntsman: He was not impressive. Had no specifics, and I'm not sure of his political ideology.  He'll be out soon.

Gingrich: I loved his response to the gotcha questions.  He is a walking, talking file of facts which is really impressive, and key in a debate.  He's been in politics too long.  His personal debt is a mild concern, as is his repeat marrying. I like him, though.


Overall loser: Huntsman
Strongest Conservative: Bachmann--of course
Strongest Specifics: Gingrich--no question
My take: I'm glad Rick Perry's in.

How to Solve the Debt "Crisis"

First, let me just say that there is no debt "crisis."  We will not default on our debt (T-Bills). Past that much, it's Obama's call whether or not we pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc (obligations).  So as the liberal drones declare that there is a Republican war against the elderly and veterans, it is actually the liberals in charge who make that final call.

There is in fact a simple solution to this problem.  The Democrats are calling for more shared sacrifice.  If they, and other liberals across the fruited plain, feel the need for more revenue, I welcome them with open arms to send a little "bonus" to the IRS come next April.  I doubt the feds would mind.  I also think there needs to be a gag tax on those extremely wealthy who insist that more can be paid.  I would point to the Gates family, Warren Buffett at times, George Soros, and GE CEO Jeff Immelt.  Every time that they start talking about how the wealthy should pay more in taxes, they should pay some large portion of their income to the feds.  And as they call for taxes with more and more frequency, they should be charged a wealth tax--including assets.  It's ridiculous that these high profile Democrat donors demand more of me and my family when all they care is that they get their green energy subsidies. It's almost as sick as when Ted Kennedy said he liked hearing jokes about Chappaquiddick.

We should extend the debt ceiling (with a balanced budged amendment, but idiot majority leader Reid is frightened by balanced budgets) until April 15.  Once Tax Day rolls around, Americans may be more accepting of severe cuts.  We should most definitely move election day to April 16.

The Backwards Administration

Today, watching President Obama's speech, I felt insulted. He called for Americans to sacrifice more, as to better our great nation. Quite frankly, I don't know if we can sacrifice any more, Mr. President. The only people doing well are your corporate buddies on Wall Street and on the board of General Electric (who paid $0 in taxes last year). And when has the idea of people subjected to the State been a part of our country's history? He referenced Thomas Jefferson in his address. As someone who admires Jefferson more than most, and has studied Jefferson, I found myself asking whether or not he actually knows what Jefferson stood for, and whether or not he actually cares. Standing at his bully pulpit, King Obama reprimanded the Republicans (and Bush, of course) for politicizing this issue and holding hostages. He discussed how that, even though Americans voted in divided government, that they wanted compromise. He's dead wrong. The landslide election of 2010 was not a rejection of the House and some of the Senate. The election was a rejection of liberalism as a whole. The doctrine that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. ascribe to is naturally flawed, and the people (who they adore when they vote Democratic) let them know last November.

It is quite clear that Obama is only concerned with re-election; not actually the direction of the country. His cohort in the Senate, Harry Reid, introduced a plan that didn't include revenue gains (more taxes), which surprised me at first. Then it came out that his plan carries us through the 2012 elections. It makes sense that Reid, a member of a far left royalty, would only care about the election...not actually the direction of the country. Boehner's plan isn't ideal either, but it's the best thing we've got right now after the Senate Democrats whined over Cut, Cap, and Balance (and tabled it). Leave it to the Democrats to eliminate debate on the only legislation addressing the issue. Not just an outline or a speech, but an actual bill that represented the will of the people (not that they'd know anything about that, anyways).

And yet again, Obama got it wrong on taxes. In his usual tone of condemnation, he scolded the "rich" corporate jet owners (I wonder if he realizes he has a private jet) and demanded they pay more of that money because they got tax breaks they "didn't need and didn't ask for." That may have been the most moronic statement in the entire speech, but there was tight competition elsewhere. I would like here to include an excerpt from an earlier piece I wrote about the taxation issue.

We are told constantly that these people are “wealthy,” “rich,” or have too much money. In most, if not all scenarios, these people didn’t become wealthy overnight. About 80% of millionaires earned it (first generation), and didn’t inherit their wealth. Our society has always been the type to reward success. However, when marginal rates increase, and capital gains do as well, success is discouraged and frowned upon (in my mind). Some fun facts are to follow…

A disproportionately large amount of the tax base comes from the top 1%-5% of earners. While the top 1% of earners account for 20% of all income earned, but pay almost 40% of the nation’s income taxes (thank you, Tax Foundation). The top 5% of earners take home 35% of all income, but pay up to 59% of the nation’s taxes. In fact, the top 5% of tax returns accounts for more revenue than the entire bottom 95% of earners.

These statistics show that we are in dire need of a flat tax, which would probably make Obama cringe. In saying that we have a revenue problem, that is partially true. But the problem is not that we have too low of a tax rate (it's been the same since 2001). The problem is that our confiscatory taxation on income, capital gains, dividends, etc. at every level of government has literally destroyed the American economy. We have sickly unemployment, 50% of Americans pay no taxes, and our GDP growth is in decline. If we introduce a 17% flat tax with no loopholes, slash (or abolish) the capital gains taxes, you'll see such a spike in revenue (novel idea, I know). More people will be employed, and more people will be paying taxes. I don't care if you're mailing Hamburger Helper to the IRS. Everyone needs to pay something.

This administration is truly mixed up in its priorities. They allow a massive amount of guns to slide into the hands of Mexican drug lords, but are steadfast in their opposition to Americans owning firearms. They seem to wear their 80,000,000 government checks per month as a badge of honor, but resent you if you have become successful. In a recent grant for marriage education, abstinence teaching was one of the "unallowable activities," but the administration is more than willing to fund abortions with federal dollars. I suppose such a stance attracts the drunk co-ed demographic, but that's about it. Blame Bush for the deficit, but Obama's quadrupled it. Blame Bush for the two wars, but we're in about five right now. It's clear that the blame game is over. Obama has yet to prove himself competent.

Why I Left the World of Libertarianism

Since the year 2000, I have had a plethora of political views. As a young seven-year old, following Grandma's lead, I supported Bush's campaign. I switched around and supported Kerry in 2004 and campaigned for our Democratic governor in Iowa in 2006. Come 2008, I was questioning my Democratic positions; namely the fiscal positions. I reluctantly supported Obama for president; along with all the other Obama-zombies filling the junior high school. I started exposing myself to Conservative outlets such as Fox News and AM radio. My aunt sent me a copy of Glenn Beck's Common Sense. I realized at this point that I was a Conservative at heart as I became one of Rush Limbaugh's "dittoheads." I began actively participating in Republican politics in Iowa City (much to my parents' dismay), and volunteered for hours prior to the 2010 elections.

Around this same time, Ron Paul came and spoke in Iowa City. I was intrigued by the doctrine of such massively limited government. Drug legalization made sense to me economically and on the basis of individual liberty and I was ready to "end the fed" and the IRS. Over the past few weeks, it has become obvious that Libertarianism is rooted in a Utopian view of politics that is unrealistic.

Watching the Republican debate in New Hampshire, nothing new surprised me. Bachmann was the standout and Cain and Gingrich's performance was impressive. Ron Paul made the blunder of the evening. When asked about his opinion on gay marriage, Dr. Paul said that government should simply be "out of the business of marriage." I was a bit taken aback by that statement, and my shock was reaffirmed as the pundits came out. Ann Coulter, who holds a law degree from the University of Michigan, pointed out that there are dozens of consequences to marriage--most of which require some form of government involvement. Adoption, inheritance, divorce, etc. are such drastic consequences of marriage, I cannot imagine enforcement of these contracts without government. Coming from a big family and having dealt with those issues, I like the reassurance that these contracts will be enforced.

What Ron Paul's answer said to me was that he didn't want to offend anybody. He, like so many libertarians, say "get the government out of it" to anything simply to avoid answering tough questions. "Get the government out of it" is a fantastic answer to most issues, but on big questions like abortion or gay marriage, a legitimate candidate better have an answer. A more ideal response on the issue of gay marriage would be, "As Federalists, we believe that the 50 states represent 50 separate laboratories for experimentation. Thus, if a state like Alabama wanted to ban gay marriage, they could, while the Massachusettses of the country could legalize it. Let's see which works better." A few of the candidates at the debate actually said something similar to that.

The doctrine of Libertarianism can be summed up in three words; all starting with "P." Pot, prostitution, and porn. I'm a big fan of small government. I, however, do not prioritize the legalization of everything above all else. We've got some work to do before we legalize all sorts of stuff. We need to reform welfare so I'm not paying for some drug addict who won't get a job. We need to flatten out the tax rate (around 17%) and make everyone a tax payer before we go off and legalize and privatize everything. We need to cut the Department of Education and return the role of education to the states. It's time to stop making up rights--the Supreme Court is becoming a Constitutional Convention. We need to look at entitlement programs and make sure soon-to-be retirees get their promised benefits--my generation can go without. I'm still opposed to the Patriot Act, I'm a supporter of the NRA, I still support legalizing some or all drugs once we get ourselves in order, and the 10th Amendment is great. As the Libertarians compete with each other--seeing who can get the best Facebook status bashing the military or Michele Bachmann, us Conservatives will work outside of bumper sticker language and cliches to improve society.