Taxes

Not long back, the Idaho County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 2009 county budget. As is to be expected, a few people showed up to protest various (or all) parts of the budget and nearly all had their say to the commissioners, while other protesters paced the sidewalk out front with picket signs. When all was said and done the protesters were still unhappy, I got an idea for a column, and of course the budget was passed with minimal changes. For the most part I can’t complain about the budget I guess, although I do think it’s a bit excessive (particularly the bonus for elected officials) at points. But, as Commissioner Brandt stated, if we want the government to provide specific services, we should expect to pay for them, and that is what our taxes do. With that I might add, just who determined that we specifically want any particular government service? Nobody ever asked me at any rate. At the risk of making myself real unpopular at the courthouse, I suspect that most of us could quite happily do without the services of tax assessors and tax collectors! Then to, if I were speeding down the highway, I don’t think I’d really want to see a deputy sheriff coming up behind me either. Still, what government services do we require, what others do we want anyway, and finally, what services could we dispense with?

One big ticket item is the county road department. Most of us complain about potholes and washboards on the road, and of course we blame the county no matter who has the responsibility of taking care of a particular stretch of road. Without the road department we’d probably see a big reduction in the tax rate well enough, but I’m also afraid that our 476 mile long collection of county maintained roads would soon be little more than goat trails, generally impassable for anything less than a tracklaying vehicle! And don’t forget that your tax bill includes the levy for whatever highway district you live in, and that district is not a part of the county budget. The sheriffs department is another big ticket item, and one that a lot of people could happily do without I suspect. Still, our local deputies do a pretty good job of keeping the scofflaws under control. After wading through reams of Idaho State Police supplied statistics, it appears that Idaho County has one of the lowest crime rates in the state, and a pretty darn good “case closed” ratio as well. That they do with a total of only 17 sworn deputies who take care of somewhere around 16,000 full time residents, and lord only knows how many part time visitors each year. According to James Zehner, Idaho County assessor, the property valuation of this county is approximately one point three billion dollars! He says that the county’s cut of your taxes is roughly two dollars on every thousand dollars of property value. The rest of the tax bill goes to school districts, fire districts, highway districts, cemetery districts, flood control districts, and hospital districts, along with any other government apparatus that happens to have their hand in your pocket. At the same time, many of us have to pay even more taxes to whatever city we live in.

Then we have the big problem, Federal taxes. The fed’s tax our income, usually at what seems like excessive rates. Then they tax us all over again on everything from gasoline to tobacco. On top of that, there are a mirade of “hidden taxes” that further empty our wallets. When all is said and done, federal taxes claim well over half of our annual income. And what do we get in return for those taxes? Quite a bit really… or so we’re told by the government propaganda machine. We get “national defense” of course, complete with multi-billion dollar naval vessels, hundred million dollar jet airplanes, mega-bucks spent on spy satellites, eight-hundred dollar toilet seats, and of course trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As if that’s not enough, we get the DOJ and federal law enforcement, wherein the FBI reads our mail, taps our phones, tracks every penny that goes through our bank account, worries about our library card usage, and produces well known operations like the mess(s) at Waco and Ruby Ridge that we’re not supposed to be concerned with because our government “knows best”, and is “taking care” of us. We get Homeland Security and the Patriot Act to make us more “secure” than we were before 9-11. We get the U.S. Forest Service that burns down our forests and then bars us from using whatever’s left of our own public lands. There’s the EPA that among other things keeps us from depleting our national oil reserves by not letting us extract the oil we so desperately need. Well, they protect Spotted Owls and Snail Darters as well, so I guess we can curl up with “warm fuzzy feelings” when the home heating oil runs out. And we get… (insert roll of drums here)… “The Fed”! That’s the quasi official “Federal Reserve” banking branch of our government that issues money… money that’s backed by nothing more than a vague “promise to pay” which makes it almost worth the paper it’s printed on. The Fed does lots of things for us, they borrow trillions of dollars from foreign countries every year to keep our government afloat, they decree how much our money’s worth, how many of our tax dollars will be used to bail out giant financial institutions that managed to get themselves into a jam, how much “money” is available for congress to give to this or that despotic foreign ruler, and they even determine how much interest you can draw on the pittance you managed to save for a rainy day. And there’s FEMA of course, those wondrous folks who come charging in a couple of weeks late, with truckloads of money to save the day whenever the Gulf Coast gets hit with a hurricane, or the Mississippi river floods the mid-west again.

Another tax provided “service” we get is watching our tax dollars being spent to support “the arts and entertainment”, which we really should appreciate I guess. After all, pornographers, talentless “actors”, wild-eyed “artists”, and filthy minded poets all deserve to “earn” a living, and a chance to show their “work” to the public… don’t they? How about my favorite tax money wasters… err… “spenders”, the US Congress. The most exclusive club in the world, congress gives themselves pay raises without asking the public for an opinion, takes long luxurious vacations all over the world at taxpayer expense, hand their overseas friends billions of dollars in assorted foreign aid, send billions more home in the form of pork barrel projects in the hopes of buying votes, and who enjoy one of the best retirement programs in existence short of being the CEO of an investment bank! Adding insult to injury, Congress said that they would dramatically simplify the US Tax Code, clear back in 1955. In the 53 years since that statement, our nice “simple and equitable” tax code has grown from 172,000 words to a more confusing 995,000 words, while our tax load, both local and federal, continue rising to astronomical heights!

I will of course have a few choice words to say about taxes at a later date. Right now, I’m running out of column space, and my Irish temper is rapidly running away from my common sense. Besides, if I really said what I think about all this legalized extortion and the people who impose it on us, my old Sunday school teacher would spend the next couple of weeks giving me a really hard time about using such language!

Sarah?

John McCain’s announcement that he had selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate struck the liberal left like the proverbial “bolt-from-the-blue”, and apparently rattled more than a few cages among the republican senior leadership as well. The national media is in a near frenzy with their “smear the republican lady” campaign, the democrats are almost hysterical in their attempts to demonize her, and the hardcore republican leadership is still weeping and wailing about their favorite son, Mitt Romney, being passed over. In the meantime the rank and file republicans along with a good many independents are sitting back enjoying the show and wishing Miz Palin well. Personally I’ve about reached the hysterical stage myself, laughing hysterically that is, at all the charges and countercharges that make up this typically American political circus… err… “campaign” that is, and I too wish her well.

There are a good many unproved accusations being passed around about Sen. Obama’s religion and supposed connections to Chicago’s “corrupt political machine” that rightly or wrongly I consider little more than mudslinging by the radical right, and ignore completely. Joe Biden seems to be a fairly safe Veep candidate for the democrats as there is surprisingly little being said about him from either side of the aisle. John McCain is quite well detested by the far left, and is constantly under attack by the media and the massed Obama supporters. Now, enter Sarah Palin, a political unknown with a quite interesting background.

The difference between John McCain and his running mate is vast. Age of course, as she’s nearly 30 years younger than McCain. She’s the first woman ever to be on a Republican presidential ticket. She’s been governor of Alaska for less than two years, while he’s served in the US Congress for 25 years. In comparison, Obama has been a congressman for only a short time, with his running mate Joe Biden having forty years of congressional experience, which means he’s experienced in working with Washington insiders, and I’d guess he has a lot of political debts to pay off. (Don’t look for much “change” other than in a cosmetic sense, from the Biden camp). The republicans claim that Obama has little or no foreign policy experience, to which the democrats claim Biden’s experience will make up for the perceived shortcoming. Now the democrats are railing about the republican vice presidential candidates lack of experience, and completely ignoring McCain’s years on the fast track! Nobody seems to remember that the Vice President is pretty much a figurehead position that that does little more than referee the Senate fights, whom we keep handy “just in case”.

McCain is classed as a “maverick” by many, and “more of the same” by the Democrats, mostly because he doesn’t subscribe to their peculiar ideas of how to run things. Personally, like every previous president, I suspect he’ll do “his own thing” no matter what the democrats claim. One of the big bug-a-boos I constantly see mentioned in the media is McCain’s age, a whole seventy-two years old. Well, that may have been doddering old age a hundred years ago, but nowdays seventy-two isn’t at all that old! Another reference to McCain’s age is that “Palin is only a heartbeat away from being president!” Really, so is Biden, but medical science and the Secret Service seem to be pretty good at preventing bad things from happening to a sitting president. The “age” part I’d say we can write-off.

As an old “cold-warrior” and Vietnam vet, I got just a bit upset when the left leaning media came up with comments about Obama not having all the “Cold War and Vietnam era baggage” to haul along. First off, whoever wins the election had better not forget the cold war or Vietnam, as that’s what set the stage for the international problems we see today! It’s not just George Bush’s doings either but dates back to the days of FDR, Harry Truman, and particularly Lyndon Johnson! Nor is it just a US problem, as you might have noticed that Vladimir Putin seems to be leading Russia into a return to the “bad old days”, while several other countries, including China and North Korea never really left those days.

Many pundits stress the fact that no Alaskan has ever appeared on a national ticket, as if an Alaskan, or any ruralite for that matter, is incapable of handling important matters. (Maybe they’ve got a point there, how many of us rural folks hold a PhD. in socialism from an eastern Ivy League college?) What’s even worse in their view is that Palin is an unknown factor to Washington political insiders, and to the national news media. After all, they didn’t “make” her career, and they don’t control her. That may be two strikes against her in their view, but it’s a definite plus in my book! For one thing, she’s a country girl, or at least a small town girl with small town values, and who isn’t afraid to get her hands dirty. She’s tough, smart, competent, credible, and confident enough to fight even the entrenched politicians of her own party. This mother of five was tired of seeing government running amuck, stepped into public service to reform it… and she’s got a record of doing just that. She’s spent her time as governor cutting taxes and government waste, reducing big government, establishing ethics committees, pursuing alternative energy, and in being pro-family and pro-life. It would seem that far-left liberals don't know how to react to a strong, conservative, female politician. They worship Hillary but seem terrified of Sarah! She’s also inspired a Web site www.PalinFacts.com, which gives some humorous, tongue-in-cheek, yet complimentary comments about Sarah Palin's life, character, and career. A few of my favorites include;

In 2003, the US considered deploying Sarah Palin to Iraq as a 1-woman commando squad, but wanted to make it a fair fight.

As head of Alaska’s Nat’l Guard, Sarah Palin taught troops in a training exercise how to scare a hand grenade into not exploding.

Sarah Palin loves opening up a can of whup-ass.

When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.

Sarah’s a very interesting lady, and very much the breath of fresh air so desperately needed in Washington today. She also a break with current Republican spending habits, and the ongoing political insider culture. In his introduction of Palin, Sen. McCain portrayed her as a political maverick, and an ordinary mother who understands the struggles of other parents, who knows the problems, the hopes, and the values of working people, knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care, along with the unending cost of gasoline and groceries.
Dunno about anyone else, but she sounds like my kinda gal!

"Code of the West"

In My Opinion
by Bob Fogarty



In 1934, author Zane Gray (1872-1939) wrote a popular western novel entitled “The Code of the West”. While no written “code” ever existed, Gray chronicled the unwritten rules of conduct that the western pioneers generally tried to live by. These rules were based on hospitality, fair play, and loyalty to friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Historian Ramon Adams, explained in his book “The Cowman and His Code of Ethics”; "Back in the days when the cowman with his herds made a new frontier, there was no law on the range. Lack of written law made it necessary for him to frame some of his own, thus developing a rule of behavior which became known as the "Code of the West." These homespun laws, being merely a gentleman’s agreement to certain rules of conduct for survival, were never written into statutes, but were respected everywhere on the range. Though the cowman might break every law of the territory, state and federal government, he took pride in upholding his own unwritten code.”

On occasion the term will come up in a conversation these days, at which point some participants will give a knowing nod, others will look around blankly, and almost always a few will snicker at such melodramatic foolishness. Most of us “country bumpkins” seem to know right off just what’s being referred to, while most of the “city slickers” seemingly haven’t a clue. For those who aren’t aware of the “Code of the West”, it’s not a joke, it’s not something an author pulled out of his hat to sell a few books, it’s not something that the kids came up with from Lone Ranger or Hopalong Cassidy movies, and it’s certainly not something that could be enforced by lawyers, judges, and juries. Quite simply it’s a mutually agreed upon code of ethics, and a way of life that doesn’t require formalities. You might say it’s an expanded version of the same Golden Rule we all learned as kids, and that ideally we would try to live our adult lives by… well, as best we can.

When we refer to “the west”, most everybody automatically thinks of the later half of the nineteenth century, of cowboys and Indians, wagon trains, cattle drives, and of course the gunfight at OK corral. But in reality, “the west” has always been quite a bit more than that. After all, what was “the west” to the Pilgrims as they stood on Plymouth Rock? What was “the west” to a seventeenth century colonist trying to clear a farm in upstate New York? What did Daniel Boone consider to be “the west”, long before the stereotype cowboy appeared on the scene? I rather think that “the west”, along with “the code of the west” began when those first Americans stepped off the boat, and tried mightily to make a new home on this continent. Consider that they had only themselves, their families, and their neighbors to depend on, and who equally depended on them. They had little or even no support from the home country. For most intents and purposes there was no law as they understood it, only mutual agreements. They were quite literally “on their own”, with no government bureaucracy around to take care of them. While the printed “code of the west” that we see at times speaks mostly of cowboys in the wild and wooly west of the late 1800’s, but it could just as well be speaking of America in the 1600’s, or even the America of today.

I’ve known of this “code” nearly all my life, being taught a part of it by my New Mexico cowboy (in his younger days) grandfather, and of course from being a Zane Gray fan in my childhood. I really don’t know how successful I’ve been through the years, but I have for the most part tried to use what Grandpa taught me as a guide to life. Certainly I’ve bent the rules a few times, but I try not to make a habit of it. In the military, and in the fire service, I’ve found a good many folks whose leadership style seemed to be based on quite similar ethics, on common sense, and on respect for their followers, rather than the threats and bluster we so often see today. For the most part these leaders were successful in their everyday lives, and in reaching their career goals. I’ve also seen those who reach their goals by walking all over everyone else and who would happily stab a friend in the back if it might give them a slight advantage. I’m reasonably sure that a good many of our countries leaders do things the same way, and would laugh hysterically if it were suggested that they might seriously consider living their life by some sort of an ethical code. But if you ask them they’ll piously assure you that they do have a quite honorable code of ethics. Perhaps… Perhaps… There is a second “Golden Rule” after all, one that states “He who has the gold makes the rules”, and that seems to fit right into the mad scramble for money and power that we see in today’s society.

We’re presently in the midst of a Presidential election campaign, with character assignations and half-baked accusations flying thick and fast, some serious mudslinging going on, and even downright lies on occasion. But the campaign hasn’t gotten really gory… or at least not yet. I might suggest that all the candidates and their supporters take a few moments to examine the unwritten code of conduct practiced by our western forbearers, and consider just how well it would serve them and our nation today, in both our internal politics and our international relations. Certainly I’d have a lot more respect for a politician who honestly tried his best to live by it.

Space won’t allow me to repeat everything attributed to the code of the west, but a few of the more prominent items might include;
The measure of a man is when he does the right thing even when no one is watching.
Be there for a friend when he needs you.

Honesty is absolute - your word is your bond, a handshake is more binding than a contract.

Look out for your own.
Don't make a threat without expecting dire consequences.

Life is not about how fast you run, or how high you climb, but how well you bounce.

It don't take a very big person to carry a grudge.

Don't interfere with something that ain't botherin' you none.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if, in the course of selecting our political leaders and representatives, we were to put a lot more value than is currently fashionable on an individual’s ethics, and be concerned with factors like honesty, truthfulness, and a sense of fair play for all? Or is that to much to ask of our public servants (and businessmen) in this modern age?

Nuts?

Well, its official I guess, the Democrats are nuts! While I doubt the claim would stand up in a court of law today, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, in a new book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” claims, "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," and that "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." It would appear that just about the time liberals figured it was safe to come out of the closet and call themselves such in public, a psychiatrist says that liberalism is really some sort of a mental disorder! (Strangely enough I’ve had that same thought many times over the last few decades!) And while many of us have made somewhat similar statements over the years, Rossiter is a professional pshrink after all, and apparently has no known connection to political activism or "the vast right-wing conspiracy", so perhaps he does know what he’s talking about. He is a board certified psychiatrist, and who also happens to be a certified forensic psychiatrist or so I understand.

Rossiter claims the brand of liberalism displayed by the Democratic presidential nominee can only be understood as a psychological disorder. As per the good doctor, "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do."… "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." He goes on to say that the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by “creating a sense of victimization”, “supporting infantile claims to entitlement and compensation”, “adds to primitive feelings of envy”, along with “rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government”. He adds; "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious." I rather liked the “spoiled, angry children” part. I’ll admit knowing quite a few Democrats that I think quite highly of… and some of them can hardly be called “liberal”, but I also remember the democratic reaction to the last couple of presidential elections, which they still claim George W. Bush “stole”.

In theory, american liberalism consists of an ideology that wants to maximize individual liberty. The theory includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Well, “freedom of speech”, as long as the speaker is politically correct perhaps, and conservative broadcasters can be put out of business by the proposed “Fairness Doctrine” if they don’t toe the liberal line? “Freedom of Religion”… or perhaps it should be “freedom from religion”? I found out why we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse anymore (this was intended to be a joke I believe, but if the shoe fits…) “You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. If you do, it creates a hostile work environment.” Liberalism is also supposed to believe in the government providing such necessities as education, health care, food, and shelter. Well, we do have government welfare programs that are supposed to do just that, but if it’s all the same to the government I’d rather have a decent job. I sometimes question much of the governments education program, but I’m not an expert, so who am I to doubt the validity of rewritten history, or the value of college credit courses in basket weaving and hard rock appriciation? Freedom of the Press? Well, I am still writing… but I doubt I’ll ever be syndicated in the New York Times… Perhaps if I start praising Al Bore’s global warming theories, or begin weeping and wailing about the horrors of off-shore oil wells?

All in all, I’d say the third party Liberatarians fit the technical defination of “Liberal” far more that the democrats who claim the name, and apparently want nothing more than to rule your everyday life, and tax you to death so that they can “redistribute” your hard earned wages! (The IRS under the Democrats… “How much do you make? Send it in.”)

Wikipedia defines socialism as “... any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories.” This particular piece goes on to interconnect socialism with communism and modern day liberalism. The Democrats of Harry Truman’s day, and even during John Kennedy’s era, were generally trying to improve America’s standard of living. But as the wild-eyed radical social theories of the 1960’s evolved into the democratic party we see today, things obviously changed, and not necessarily for the better. I well remember the discussions of “if only the Scientists (or the Doctors, or the Sociologists, or whomever) ran the world” that were common in the fifties and sixties. Today’s left wing liberals developed from those thoughts, and now seem to be but a step away from reinventing Marxist communism, preferring government to individual control of every aspect of our lives! Still, I’d much rather make my own mistakes!

“Liberalism” as we understand it to be today, has been around for a long time and in any number of guises. America’s founding fathers were quite liberal in their political thinking for their day and age. Strangely enough, they were firm believers in massive doses of individual liberty (and the corresponding civic responsibility), without engaging a mid-sized herd of Kings, Princes, and assorted government officials to make every decision for the great unwashed masses. The country they brought into being seems to have functioned fairly well for a couple of hundred years. Now however, we seem to have all sorts of well meaning people who want to control our every waking moment, “for our own good” of course, and they are terribly close to winning!

I’ll end with a quotation from Sir Winston Churchill who, in his long and variegated political career, was a political liberal at times, as well as staunch conservative. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”