| Subject: Re: Trance Seance - ECONOMIC FREEDOM - Part 2 |
Author:
Maryse
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:24:10 05/18/08 Sun
In reply to:
Maryse
's message, "Trance Seance - ECONOMIC FREEDOM - Part 1" on 01:20:10 05/18/08 Sun
-- ********--
Spirit Thomas Jefferson: It has been a while, but it is a pleasure to be back. I would like to take a few moments to comment from my perspective on what Mr. Hamilton was saying.
In the destiny of America, one of the crucial issues that the people of this country must face is the extreme importance of economic freedom. While there is a lot of rhetorical bantering about freedom for this and freedom for that, it is generally forgotten that one of the most important freedoms is economic freedom – the freedom to earn and prosper and participate in the commerce of the country and the world.
It is a common ploy used by many governments to promote a wide range of personal freedoms while constraining economic freedom. And the unsophisticated citizen – the person who would rather be led than lead – often accepts the deceit. He may think that he has quite a lot of freedom – he’s permitted to read any book he likes, or see any movie, or travel to any state. It appears he is free to participate in any way he likes in a free society. In reality, however, the whole economy and commerce of the system IS BEING CAREFULLY REGULATED AND TAXED AND CONTROLLED. It’s a little POLITICAL MANEUVER THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE MORE AWARE OF. The perception of freedom and the reality of freedom are two distinct things.
One of the points Mr. Hamilton enunciated was the gradual erosion of economic freedom in this country and what it will take to correct it. It is the destiny of America to express both individual and economic freedom. Economic freedom is the one that has been taken away and is most severely constrained at this time. And until economic freedom is restored, the destiny of America will be unfulfilled.
So it is crucial at this juncture in history to thoroughly examine just what economic freedom is. Each individual in America should search within himself to determine just what FREEDOM is, what the value of freedom is to him, and how much of this kind of freedom he enjoys. And if the individual citizen will do this, I think he will come to the realisation that we have lost much of our economic freedom, that more freedom is necessary to fulfil the destiny of America, and that it is worth fighting for.
There has been a severe erosion in this country of the freedoms that we fought so hard for in the beginning. It has been eroded under the guise of many noble principles, but the fact remains that the common person in America has much less freedom today than two hundred years ago.
I hope that adds something to Mr. Hamilton’s discussion. Do you have any questions on that?
Sitter: No. It makes a great deal of sense. Without the ability to control your income and spend it as you wish, the other freedoms are somewhat useless.
Sitter: Would it have been helpful to have had an eleventh item in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing economic freedom?
Jefferson: Yes, it probably would have. At the time, we assumed the need for economic freedom was self-evident. There was a minimum of taxation, just enough to keep the government running. The thought of the government becoming as gross and as large as it is today never occurred to us. We did try to put some constraints on the government’s ability to create money and coin money out of metals; we were quite aware of the fallibility of paper money, because we had printed money ourselves during the Revolution, and it wasn’t worth much.
Sitter: Probably what we really need, although it isn’t actually feasible, is a Bill of Responsibilities to go with the Bill of Rights. It’s not feasible because it wouldn’t be enforceable.
Another sitter: Perhaps we should draw up a bill like that and add it as an addendum to the interview.
Jefferson: You could, but it’s really something each individual reader should draw up for himself or herself. That would be much more beneficial.
Sitter: Ahh! Very good! Well, we talked with Mr. Hamilton about a number of possible constitutional amendments. Would it be a good idea at this time to amend the Constitution to guarantee the freedom to pursue economic achievement?
Jefferson: Well, it is very lofty to propose something like that, but the fact of the matter is that the government which exists now is the government the people want. This is one of the fallacies of the democratic process – the government merely represents the will of the people in its truest sense. UNTIL EVERY INDIVIDUAL DOES A GREAT DEAL OF SOUL SEARCHING, trying to figure out why we’ve gotten into the mess we are in, and demands that a change be made, tinkering with the Constitution would not help. And it wouldn’t happen, for that matter.
Sitter: Sure.
Jefferson: On the other hand, we did put into the Constitution the mechanism for making changes in it. We were aware that we couldn’t set down everything that would be needed to preserve FREEDOM in this country. The people and the times change, and a constitution must be able to change with them. Perhaps now is the time to think out and add to the Constitution some SEVERE RESTRAINTS on the government’s ability TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE LIVES of people economically.
Of course, I was one of the major proponents of a very small central government from the very beginning, so you are talking to the right person when you complain about large government encroaching on the rights of the individual. And this will be the major focus of my comments in this interview. I’ve been given the responsibility to talk about the problem of our large bureaucracy.
I guess I would start by pointing out the obvious. Everywhere you turn today, the government has become involved. THERE IS A RULE HERE, A RESTRICTION THERE, AND A PAPER TO FILL OUT FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. It has grown beyond anything imaginable to us in the early days.
The problem now is: how do you phase back government INFLUENCE? When you look at the mechanics of the federal bureaucracy and how it works, it becomes quite apparent that it is geared to spending money. It takes money from the citizens of the country THROUGH TAXATION and then decides how THIS MASSIVE AMOUNT OF MONEY is going to be spent. But IT CONSTANTLY WANTS MORE, so if it can’t raise taxes, IT BORROWS MONEY SO IT CONTINUES SPENDING, as Mr. Hamilton discussed.
If you take an in-depth look at how the bureaucracy moves today, you will find that it consists of a hierarchy of managers. These managers are charged with developing programs in their particular departments, which means generating a budget, acquiring a staff, and implementing the programs. Each individual department can be thought of as an economic unit whose health depends upon the amount of funds it receives from the Congress and the administration. But that does not promote efficiency – it promotes the exact opposite. The managers of the various government departments have very little incentive to be efficient, because THEIR PRESTIGE AND IMPORTANCE ARE MEASURED IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE SIZE OF THEIR BUDGET. And so there are two factors that motivate most bureaucrats:
- One is to make sure their department budget increases every year.
- And the second is to use the funds allotted to them in any given year as inefficiently as they can, so they can JUSTIFY A BIGGER INCREASE THE NEXT YEAR.
So every year, every manager in government, except the ones with the loftiest of motives, plays this game of lobbying for an increased budget. They say they are doing this to serve the public better, of course! But that is not the reason… It is a BUREAUCRATIC GAME. And then the money is spent with absolutely no concern for efficiency. The all-consuming goal of the bureaucratic manager is to make sure that ALL of the money in his budget is spent – and it almost always is. Very seldom has any department of the government come in under budget, reporting: “There’s two million dollars we didn’t spent this year so we are giving it back. We’ve beneficent and have cut back on some staff, and in this way we’ve been able to save the public two millions dollars.” [Laughter.]
That just isn’t heard of. What is heard of, and does get reported some in the press, is a mad rush at the end of each fiscal year to spend every dime that has been allocated. It’s an appalling situation, and it reflects the gross inequities that have developed in the bureaucracy over the years. Until this problem of LIFETIME BUREAUCRATS whose prestige and career path are dependent on ever-increasing budget is corrected, the system will not get better. There needs to be a major REDEFINITION OF THE PRIORITIES OF A SUCCESSFUL BUREAUCRAT so that they are in harmony with the public’s interest, not the bureaucrat’s.
The current administration is a breath of fresh air in A LONG SERIES OF BIG SPENDERS. But it is not just enough to make adjustments in the economy as a whole or even government spending as a whole. These steps must be COMPLEMENTED WITH AN AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM to provide INCENTIVES FOR EFFICIENCY AND FRUGALITY in the federal bureaucracy – and to take away the rewards for bigness and increased spending. The managers who make the real decision whether money is spent efficiently or not must be given the incentive to save money and return it to the public coffers.
But the one thing that must not be done is to go out and hire consultants to come up with such a system! [Laughter.]
It just takes common sense!
Sitter: Are there other ideas beyond financial incentives that can be drawn from private enterprise in order to save money?
Jefferson: Sure! There are many ways profitable companies encourage and reward efficiency, and these should be drawn on. It might not be a bad idea to develop a committee from private enterprise to look at the functioning of government and make some recommendations on how to restructure it.
Sitter: Yes this is one of the great virtues of the capitalist system – the profit motive does tend to promote efficiency. What about sunset legislation, where government programs die after a certain period of time if they are not specifically renewed b Congress?
Jefferson: Every bit of legislation should have a sunset clause in it.
Sitter: Can anything be done to prohibit the deviousness found in many government programs, where the program starts out with an expenditure of only $500,000 the first year and is expected to grow to no more than two million dollars in five years, but somehow ends up mushrooming to an expenditure of a billion and a half? The food stamp program mushroomed in exactly that way.
Jefferson: The root of the deviousness, of course, lies in the administration of the program. I think we would all agree that it is a good idea to alleviate the hunger of poor ghetto families. But if a study were done on how much of the money in the food stamp program IS ACTUALLY SPENT ON HELPING THE PEOPLE it is targeted for, you would find it is A VERY SMALL PART of the total budget. Most of the money goes to the bureaucrats who administer it, the contractors who provide the services, and the consultants who promote and explain the program to the public. There is a whole economy which is built up around the administration of government programs – private companies and individuals whose sole source of income is government funds.
Sitter: Well, in the judicial system, if a judge is called on to adjudicate a case in which he has a conflict of interest, he is supposed to disqualify himself. Can’t we carry that kind of precedent into the bureaucracy? Perhaps people who are going to benefit directly from government largesse should be disqualified from having a voice in how the program is formulated or how it is implemented.
Jefferson: Of course, but the situation at present is the direct opposite. The people who will gain the most from new programs are the ones who lobby for it. It is very seldom that the people for whom the money is targeted come forward and lobby for it.
If you examine some of the programs for the disadvantaged segments of society, you will find that the majority of people screaming at the government to perpetuate these programs are not the people who are supposed to be benefiting from them, but the people who administer them. Now, it can always be said that the disadvantaged need a voice in Washington, that they are not competent enough to lobby for themselves. But it would say that if the program was really important to them, they would find a way to speak up for themselves. That’s what democracy is based on, after all.
Sitter: Along this line, I was surprised to learn the other day that apparently the MAJORITY of non-profit corporations in this country are set up for the purpose of receiving federal funds. They are not supported by charitable contributions from the public – only by federal funds. And they are making quite an organised effort right now to oppose and obstruct the current administration’s efforts to cut back on the various federal programs that keep them alive. These groups literally exist in order to accept and distribute federal money. To me, that defeats the entire charitable purpose of non-profit status.
Jefferson: Well, this is another example of THE LOSS OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM in this country AND the IMMENSE TRANSFERT OF WEALTH which is occurring, both in blatant and in subtle way. Rather than provide an incentive for philanthropic activities by the public at large, the ALMIGHTY GOVERNMENT has taken it upon itself TO DECIDE, in its immense wisdom, who is going to benefit from public funds! This is totally contrary to what we had originally intended for the role of government.
Sitter: Yes. Well, let me ask this – There are laws – I’m not sure if they are federal or state – that limit the amount of money charitable organisations can spend on fund raising to a certain percentage of their income. I Maryland, there was a certain organisation that was spending something like 95 percent of its funds to raise some money, and only 5 percent was going to fulfil its charitable purpose. All hell broke loose, of course, and they were sued and put out of business. Can’t the same laws be applied to government agencies, limiting overhead to a specific percentage, with all the rest of the funds being spent to fulfil the purpose of the program?
Jefferson: That would be a perfectly viable solution, yes. There are many ways to do it.
Sitter: And of course there is the example of the Federal Drug Administration, which insists that a new drug must be proven effective before they will license it. Can’t the same thing be done for government programs – they have to be proven effective before we unleash them on the whole population?
Jefferson: Ah! But that would be questioning the altruistic motives of the bureaucrat proposing the program. [Laughter.]
Sitter: Damn right. [More laughter.]
Another Sitter: Of course, a restriction like that would just generate a new breed of consultant who would prove that all these programs work [Guffawing.]
Sitter: Well, we need to take a close look at the hypocrisy and deception.
Jefferson: Running an efficient government is no big secret. All the tools are available. This country has more than enough management techniques and well-trained managers to make the government run efficiently. The problem is not know-how; THE PROBLEM IS THAT AN EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE DESIRED GOAL. It is oft stated to be the desired goal, but if you look at what people do rather than what they say, you will see there is very little interest in efficiency.
Even the efforts of the current administration, which seems serious about improving the efficiency of government fall far short of the minimum necessary to change the tide and the momentum of governmental policies. The Reagan administration has taken some good steps, and we are pleased that at least the idea of restraint in government is being discussed, but the efforts are falling far short. And all such efforts will fall short until the will of people is mobilised to demand that if in fact they are going to be taxed at these rates, the government had better be more accountable for the way it is spending the money.
Let me digress for a moment and make the observation that this is the first time in the history of the United States when a generation is coming of age that has never really known a time when the income tax did not exist. The previous generation grew up at a time when the income tax was still relatively minor and not a major factor. But THE GENERATION NOW moving to maturity IS REALLY THE FIRST ONE THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN A SYSTEM OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM.
Sitter: There’s even propaganda in the way the income tax is discussed. It is labelled PROGRESSIVE, because the more you make, the more you pay. Whereas a flat tax is labelled REGRESSIVE, because it is thought to penalise the poor. It is a cleverly deceitful way to obscure the real issues.
Jefferson: Yes. Of course, The Soviet Union has a PROGRESSIVE tax system, too.
Sitter: But they make no pretence to economic freedom.
Another Sitter: They take it ALL, and give back what little they want to do.
Jefferson: Many of the socialist countries have progressive tax systems. If an individual advocates a progressive tax, I would be very sceptical that he had any concept at all of WHAT ECONOMIC FREEDOM ENTAILS and how the workings of A FREE SOCIETY should intertwine.
In fact, advocating a progressive tax is the surest sign of all that the individual is in fact talking against economic freedom. It is appalling.
Sitter: But people today talk seriously about what they call the reverse Robin Hood effect, that a flat tax would take from the poor and give to the rich. I think that shows how deeply these ideas have become entrenched in a relatively short time.
Jefferson: Absolutely. Fifty years ago, the thought of a reverse Robin Hood effect would have been foreign to the majority of Americans, so you can see how degraded the level of political and economic thought in this country has become. It has reached the point where people who do not have a productive bone in their bodies are proclaiming their right to sap the energy of the productive members of society in the form of transfer payments. The personality that embodies the spirit of America has become ill and is going through a period of psychological imbalance.
Sitter: Would you take a moment to describe in some detail exactly what the impact and likely consequences will be if this SAPPING OF STRENGTH OF THE SOCIETY’s PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS continues? Not all the people may fully understand what we are referring to here, or why it is so harmful.
Jefferson: Well, as Mr. Hamilton mentioned, it eventually produces a situation where the entire system begins to crumble around you. The productive members of society form an underground economy, and it reaches the point where the government is unable to collect enough funds to keep it running. Then, either the entire system crumbles or a new governmental system – much more totalitarian and repressive – emerges, leading to an even greater loss of freedom.
Sitter: Don’t you also have a falling off in the productivity of formerly hard working people, as they begin to realise that it doesn’t pay to work so hard? If they productivity is going to be penalised, why work?
Jefferson: Right. But you can’t expect the government to suddenly GET SMART and SEE what is happening, search THEIR INNER VIRTUES, and REALIZE that as the government gets bigger and bigger, it’s going to tax more and more. And the only form of protest will be either TO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES OR REFUSE TO BE PRODUCTIVE. And in either case, the potential is there for the government to respond by intruding on individual freedoms even more.
Sitter: Yes. It is often noted that the most Gestapo-like elements of many governments are the tax collecting agencies. Certainly in the United States, the Internal Revenue Service has more subpoena rights and more legal grounds for invading our privacy and checking our records than any other branch of government. And it is the only branch of government that considers you GUILTY until you PROVE YOURSELF HONEST.
Jefferson: Absolutely. And it could get worse. Part of the reason why we are all participating in this interview is to RAISE THE FLAG AND WARN people of the potential for the EROSION OF EVEN MORE OF THE INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM of the American people.
It’s an extremely dangerous period in the history of the United States.
Sitter: Well, should we perhaps be looking for a way to promote incentives for productivity that go beyond just being able to do your own thing?
Jefferson: Well, the government of the united States has spent a good fifty years taking away all of the incentives for productivity that once existed, and now that it has taken them and we have gotten ourselves into this mess, it is turning around and saying, “Gee, may be we ought to give the public a few incentives to be more productive.”
This is the way the twisted thinking of our bloated government works. A rational person, however, can easily see that it never should have taken any of the incentives away in the first place. So the debate is not really whether or not the government should now give us a few incentives. Giving people a few incentives to be more productive is not giving them anything. THE ONLY TRUE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE IS TO REMOVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
This is an important point which is oft forgotten. We would still have the incentives we need to be productive if the government hadn’t taken them all away. So all this talk about productivity incentives and capital spending incentives is really clouding the issue. THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS IS THE REDUCTION OF TAXES.
We don’t need incentives. WE NEED PEOPLE WHO WILL STAND UP AND TELL THE GOVERNMENT: “GIVE US OUR FREEDOM. TAKE OFF THE SHACKLES.”
Sitter: Well, I agree completely with that. But I was suggesting something a little different. Andrew Carnegie, for instance, set up a fund to honour heroes – people who had done unusual things and deserved to be acclaimed publicly and recognised as a benefactor or hero. And then there’s the MacArthur Foundation, which gives money to people who are being unusually creative to help sustain their good work. I see these as positive incentives.
Jefferson: Oh, I see what you are saying. Yes, that can help, as long as it does not obscure our real need – A RETURN TO GENUINE ECONOMIC FREEDOM.
Sitter: Yes, the real issue here is economic freedom, not the doctoring the government might do from time to time TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE of substantial change.
Jefferson: Yes. The government has appointed itself the ultimate dispenser of economic freedom, and this is a total reversal of what we established.
Sitter: And you can’t dispense freedom anyway –you can only guarantee it.
Jefferson: Or not.
Sitter: And I think this is a point we should all dwell on.
Another sitter: Yet what do you say about those who claim that certain minorities, or even the public as a whole, need government protection? It seems to me that sometimes this protection is carried to the extent where THEY ARE PROTECTED FROM HAVING TO BE COMPETENT OR MAKE A LIVING.
Jefferson: That is true. The role of the government should go no further than to protect the minority from the majority. That means providing them with the same opportunities, rights, and environment for success. If discrimination and injustice keep a minority from enjoying the opportunities, rights, and environment for success the majority enjoys, then it is a proper role of government to step in and be a referee.
However, the guarantee of equality and freedom does not mean that everyone’s income will be equal or that everyone’s talents will be equal, or that everyone’s economic well being, intellectual capacity, or emotional security will be equal. It merely means that every individual has an equal chance to achieve success, whatever his or her definition of success would be.
Of course, this concept has been grossly distorted, and the government has apparently decided that equality means that everyone should have the same amount of income, whether he is productive or not.
Sitter: and that undercuts the factor of accountability, doesn’t it? In private business and the professions, you have to be accountable. If you are a doctor, for instance, and you do not render reasonably good medical service, then you can be sued for malpractice. But if everyone has a RIGHT to a certain level of income, no matter how lazy or incompetent he may be, then accountability has no meaning. And it seems to me that the principle of accountability is an inherent part of sustaining freedom.
Jefferson: Yes. And here once again we see evidence of the erosion of freedom. The government has assumed accountability for protecting the individual, and yet in doing so, it has taken this responsibility away from those who have traditionally held it. And so now, we have the government insuring that the products of business and the services of the professions meet standards it has developed.
There definitely is a role for government protection of the health of the individual. Certain minimum standards of health care must be met. But in the final analysis, the value of a product or service in a free economy should be determined by its ability to be sold. And the greatest exercise of individual freedom is the choice not to purchase certain goods or partake of certain services.
The government does have a role in pointing out standards, BUT IT SHOULD NOT EXPAND THAT ROLE TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING A RATIONAL DECISION AWAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL. And unfortunately, the government has taken on this responsibility, and we have suffered a loss of freedom.
Of course, given the quality of the individuals we have in government, you can understand why this has happened.
Sitter: I wonder about THE HYPOCRISY of some of these people, though, who seem to think that BIGNESS IS BAD IN BUSINESS, BUT PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT IN GOVERNMENT. It’s bad for Exxon to have huge profits, but seems to be all right for the government to take a hundred times as much from the public!
Jefferson: Yes. Well, let me summarise and then I will let someone else have his say.
The destiny of America is to demonstrate to the world that THE ALL-IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR HUMANITY IS FREEDOM – and specifically ECONOMIC FREEDOM. And before this message can be transmitted effectively to the world, and before FREEDOM AND DIGNITY AND THE DIVINE RIGHT OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS can be spread to include the WHOLE WORLD, these principles must be expressed and demonstrated here in the United States.
It is the destiny of the United States to express this freedom, BOTH INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM. But rather than expressing its own mission and individuality, THE UNITED STATES HAS SUCCUMBED TO THE DISEASE THAT HAS PLAGUED HUMANITY FOR COUNTLESS THOUSAND YEARS. Unless its vision of destiny can be revitalised, and the principles this country was founded on can be restated in the light of current world situations then the great divine experiment which was the United States could abort. Unless some real soul searching on the part of this new generation occurs, examining the principles on which this country was founded and finding new ways to express them again, there is a real possibility we could end up with a mediocre country, a semi-socialist, semi-greedy, huge, bloated bureaucratic government that is no different than any other country in the world.
Now, while that sounds relatively gloomy and pessimistic, do want you to understand that there is a great opportunity here to see that we have in fact succumbed to the historical momentum of greed, ignorance, and selfishness _ we have an opportunity to see that the pure American system has been altered. And if we can see this, and make the necessary changes, we will be able to fulfil the destiny of this country.
The spirit of America has immense power, you know, and it has a very important statement to make to the world. If we can effectively harness the will of the American people to deal with these problems, then we can restore THE FREEDOMS we have lost and demonstrate them once again to the whole world.
In the final analysis, the components, the creative impulse, and the benefits of the American system are correct. And it is our deep conviction that the system is basically correct and will prevail in the end, in spite of these problems. But if the system is to evolve into what it can be – something that will express the divine presence of the spirit of America for all the world to see – then we must seize this conviction, because it is only this conviction that can give us the strength to change the system. The destiny of America is to demonstrate to the world that our system of democracy works and is a model that can be implemented throughout the world. It is a large task. It is not a simple task, because it is very easy to lull yourself into just accepting the status quo.
It will take a concerted effort of will on the part of the majority of Americans to decide that we can improve the system we have, and that we owe it to ourselves, to the future, and to the spirit of America to do so. We can learn from history and see that there have been times when we have had more freedom than we do today. We can see that the system has been tinkered with and the psychological atmosphere has been muddied.
If we will be guided by these historical lessons, updating them to fit the modern scene, there is still great hope. There’s a great opportunity for the United States to lead the world out of the critical situation it is now in, and provide a basic pattern for government in which the destiny of human beings throughout the world can be fulfilled. This is the destiny of America.
Sitter: Very good.
Jefferson: If that is enough, I think I will leave. Thank you.
Sitters: Thank you.
[The spirit of Thomas Jefferson then withdrew from the body of the medium and was replaced by the spirit of Benjamin Franklin.]
-- ********--
.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
