news-record.com

OPINION

Gene Owens: Back to the Founding Fathers

Friday, April 2, 2010
(Updated 3:00 am)

With one master stroke of tyranny, the Congress of these United States has foisted on the nation a plan that will provide health insurance for 32 million Americans who have gone without it.

This cynical act will remove from countless households the right to free choice: whether to spend scarce funds on groceries or on medical care.

The passage of health care reform has caused a frenzy among patriotic Americans who want to take this country back to the era of its founding fathers, when government was small, women were docile and a man was a man, or -- in the case of African American slaves -- three-fifths of a man.

It's all quite understandable when you look at what it would be like were we to reverse 234 years of regression since these United States gained their freedom in 1776.

It was in that year that our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

No, wait. That was the description applied by the great tyrant, Abraham Lincoln, some fourscore and seven years after the Declaration. Until Lincoln started taking away states' rights, close to half the states granted their free citizens the right to own other humans.

When the United States was born, the blight of democracy had not alighted on these pristine shores. Government was in the hands of men who knew how to govern. Presidents were elected by an electoral college chosen by state legislatures, not by the ignorant masses. The U.S. Senate was elected the same way. Of course, free men could vote for their state legislators, provided they were white male property owners.

The country took its first step toward tyranny in 1787, when it adopted a Constitution that established a federal government with power to tax and a Supreme Court that could rule on state laws. It took an early step toward socialism when the federal government got into the business of building roads and canals and providing rights of way for railroads in an attempt to tie together a sprawling wilderness land that might otherwise crumble by its own free will into separate little republics. It also adopted the socialistic view that government had the power to favor American industry by taxing foreign imports.

In the early days, before we lost our freedom, there was no Social Security to siphon money out of the collective wallet and dole it out to the elderly. Back then, a couple's security was provided by raising sons and daughters who could provide them with food and shelter after Pa and Ma no longer could. This worked better for men than it did for women, since women tended to die a lot from child birth before reaching retirement age. This was good for the divorce rate.

Medical insurance was unnecessary. Back then, doctors made house calls and would accept a mess of greens, a chicken, a leg of beef or a ham as payment for services. They hadn't discovered MRI or multiple-bypass heart surgery; nor had the pill companies invested millions in the development and advertising of prescription drugs.

People who found themselves unable to make a living and who had not been foresighted enough to raise big families could just pack up and move to the Poor House. It wasn't deluxe accommodations, but it was a place to die.

If you were out of work and could scrape up a pittance, you could buy a wagon, a team of oxen, a cow, a couple of pigs and a plow mule and head west into the wilderness. There, you could buy some land from the government, build a log cabin and raise a crop, provided you could hold onto your scalp when the Indians objected to your settling on their land.

It was only in 1862 -- after the Southern states had withdrawn from the tyrannical government Abe Lincoln headed -- that Congress passed the socialistic Homestead Act, which was the opening wedge of the welfare state. Under this act, an out-of-work citizen could settle on 160 acres of unoccupied wilderness land, work it for five years, and get full title for a nominal fee.

By 1929, when America entered the granddaddy of all depressions, we had about run out of good land to give away. There was no Social Security for the old folks and no unemployment compensation for the 25 percent of breadwinners who were out of jobs. It was then that Franklin D. Roosevelt, the granddaddy of all socialists, hatched a scheme to rob us of our tax dollars by implementing government jobs programs such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, and to provide Social Security for those past retirement age.

Since then, the federal government has added food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare to the list of burdens it has piled on its freedom-loving citizens.

I'm not sure where this is all going to end. If things keep going as they have been going, the government will be using tax dollars to keep private businesses such as General Motors and Chrysler from going bankrupt and throwing all their workers into unemployment; it will be sending zillions to bail out banks who got too generous and too careless in doling out loans to people who couldn't repay them.

But wait a minute. That's already happened, hasn't it? So on with the slogan: Billions for bankers; not a sixpence for the sick.

 

Write to Gene Owens at 315 Lakeforest Circle, Anderson SC 29625. E-mail: Swampscum2@aol.com

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

monolisa02

April 2, 2010 - 4:17 am EDT

No one does more for people over 50 than AARP. And you can get all the perks and benefits with AARP membership.
Join AARP at http://bit.ly/aFiDE3

rmacz

April 2, 2010 - 8:53 am EDT

...and there goes your bucks to fund all this BS.....ha!

Stalin

April 2, 2010 - 3:02 pm EDT

Dear News and Record:

Should you allow links like that?

What if someone linked the Nazi Party or lemonparty?

Yours,

Art LINKletter

PS -- I must go now to play golf with my friend, Lancelot LINK, secret chimp.

rmacz

April 2, 2010 - 3:53 pm EDT

BS = Barbara Streisand, surly you're talking about mono. You can respond on your blackberry while you're losing the round....ha!

retiree

April 3, 2010 - 8:38 am EDT

I'm over 60 and wouldn't join AARP if it were free. They've proved to me they are a liberal socialist organization and I won't ever join them. Also, one reason why they supported Obama's health care reform is they profit from the sale of secondary insurance from UHC. Millions of new subscribers means millions more in income for them, not to mention paybacks because of their donations to the Dems.

Panacea

April 2, 2010 - 7:50 am EDT

Great article, Gene. A real hoot :D

Sawdust

April 2, 2010 - 8:37 am EDT

Yes except that he left out the part where the government finally collapses under the enormous debt brought by all those fine, well-intentioned social programs. Oh, wait; that hasn't happened yet. Stick around, you won't have to wait very long to witness it live and in person.

dcolin

April 2, 2010 - 4:44 pm EDT

This would be the Armageddon?
Do let us know when it happens.

rmacz

April 2, 2010 - 7:07 pm EDT

Well....we had 16 years of FDR, and now we have Hope and Change. We're getting close Danny, just ask yo mama.

jpasinjaypea

April 3, 2010 - 3:33 pm EDT

Can you tell us why you don't put your money where your comments are? You don't have to be a genius to know that if you don't believe in Social Security and Medicare being funded by the government you can always return all the money that you have received from these programs to the Treasury Department with a request that it be apply to the deficit. If all the people who claim to feel this way would do that - there wouldn't be a deficit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gymnaseum

April 2, 2010 - 3:01 pm EDT

Means-testing for Social Security. Sur-taxes on those making over a half-million. Or do away with all income taxes below 100K, but add a value-added consumption tax of 15% to all goods and services. The Uber-rich have made out like never before and pay far less of their total income in taxes than ever before. It isn't so much the government caving under we need to worry about, it's outright revolt among the working and lower-middle class....which will soon cover about 80% of us.

retiree

April 3, 2010 - 8:28 am EDT

Means testing? Sur-taxes over 500k? As I read this I'm thinking of the core values of a socialist who wants to create equity (at least as they see it) by force. If the only way you can increase economic benefits for some is by taking resources from others, you end up with economic redistribution by a tyranical government and we're moving in that direction. Wasn't the communists decree something like "from each according to his abilities to each according to their needs?"

Also, your comment about the rich paying less of their income in taxes than ever before is incorrect. You may not know but we have a progressive tax system which means the more you make the more you pay as a percent of your income. And, currently about 40-50% of citizens do not pay income taxes at all, and that's not the super rich. For many low wage earners, they get money added to their check from their employers as part of the earned income credit.

Our constitution says the government was to protect liberty, provide for the common defense, and "promote" the general welfare of our citizens, not provide for it.

jpasinjaypea

April 3, 2010 - 4:14 pm EDT

Have you ever considered a flat tax on all income as a solution. We had a candidate who did not long ago and he was hooted out of existence at the poll's. Believe his name was Ron Paul - ever heard of him? In this day and age and with the monstrous growth of greed now present - having any "losses" or deductions against total income is ridiculous in my opinion, no matter what your income is. The farce promoted by the Supreme Court that withholding at the source of that income is unconstitutional, only hold's true as long as that Court remains 100% political in nature. Get an honest unbiased Court and you get an honest tax system across the board on gross income withheld at the source - and produce more in income tax than the present system. The tax rate, under the current system is meaningless. Nobody pays that rate - whatever their income. The only rate that matters at all is the NET (after all exemptions, losses and deductions) tax rate at the end of the day. Reagan fooled the people badly when he claimed to have reduced taxes from 70% to 35% and people swallowed it whole. But he did it on the back of the middle class by taking away their ability to itemize deductions, and handing it on a platter to the highest income earners - and still, after all is said and done, the public believes he really did reduce the income tax itself. If you don't understand this - just take your last tax return, remove all deductions and losses, the governments additional gifts in the form of their credits for the way you spent your money, and see what your actual gross income tax rate is.

Gymnaseum

April 3, 2010 - 7:14 pm EDT

How exactly does one "promote the general welfare", if not by visiting the distribution of wealth and deciding which programs will help the most people, especially those who have not sufficient means to promote their own? Did all the thousands of mill workers and textile workers and furniture workers who have lost their jobs recently do something wrong to deserve to be cast out of the middle class? To have their homes foreclosed on? Yes, now many are getting retrained, but business is not exactly hiring much of anyone, at least not on our own shores.

The most well-off pay much lower real rates than they did in the boom-boom fifties. They have, as the previous poster says, even bigger deductions. All this was done by Republican AND Clinton changes to the tax code, and now some Obama policies, too! (still have the 15% for long-term capital gains and the new home buyer credits for even those buying their second house). THAT is JUST as much "redistribution of wealth" as what I suggested. EVERY regulation and tax code is a "RE-distribution". As a society, the argument is not whether we should or shouldn't redistribute, but HOW. The only way not to redistribute is to do NOTHING. We live in a second "Gilded Age" of robber barons (bankers and hedge fund managers, pharmaceuticals, insurance execs). We need a second Teddy Roosevelt.

rmacz

April 3, 2010 - 7:33 pm EDT

Reagan did alright after Carter. Now...Carter II....hummm?

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search