The Three-Fifths Compromise

On January 6th, 2011, we saw a new Republican Congress sworn into office. For those on the right and some in the middle, this was a refreshing moment that began to re-balance a decidedly left federal government. The Republicans opened Congress with a reading of the United States Constitution. For many Democrats I suppose this was their first time reading the document. However, I also believe some Republicans were listening to the Constitution's words for the first time as well, as evidenced by their leaving out the "Three-Fifths Compromise" clause. This was done in order to "not offend anyone," which really comes down to either ignorance or just plain cowardice.

The full text can be found in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons (emphasis mine.)" To sum up: taxes and representation will be population based (just like today) but we won't count Indians on reservations and slaves will only count as 3/5 a person when conducting a census. See, originally the federal government was to receive taxes based on land values. But, just as any homeowner knows, the lower the value of one's home/land, the lower their tax burden. The states practiced this frequently which became a problem for the fledgling Washington government when trying to raise revenue.

This next part is simple. During the Constitutional Convention in the late 1700's, the South was for slavery and the North was against it. The Northern states wanted to ban it all together but the Southern states really enjoyed the free labor that gathered cotton and boosted their economic output. So, when deciding how to count the population, the South wanted each slave to count as 1 person, while the North wanted them to not count at all. "*GASP* The North was full of racists and bigots!" some will say. Not true. The blatant hypocrisy of the Southern states is almost laughable. It's not that the South wanted to afford slaves the right to vote, in fact, it was quite the opposite. They simply wanted them counted among the population in order to increase their representation in Congress. This would give the South more votes than the North, thereby making it impossible for the North to abolish slavery. The "Three-Fifths Compromise" was actually a product from the Northern states. It was a way to decrease the South's population count in Congress while still getting the South to sign on to the U.S. Constitution. Without this compromise, the Constitution would have never been ratified and we'd have a much different country than we do today.

So why did the Republicans in Congress skip over this section (they also skipped over the 18th Amendment which abolished Liquor, but that's a little off topic)? As I stated above, it was either ignorance or cowardice. When editing papers in high school or college, people correct and erase their mistakes before turning in a finished paper. But the Constitution is a very unique document as it contains all Amendments, even those repealed by amendments made in the future (mistakes). This is so we learn what was done, why it was done, and why it's no longer in practice today. Since the Republicans skipped this section in reading the Constitution, they also skipped the opportunity to have a national discussion about what the clause actually meant. And that in itself was a mistake.

The Minimum Wage

If you feel like it, go ahead and click the link to the left entitled "The United States Constitution." If, after reading through Article 1 Section 8 you find a power called "Congress shall have the Power to set and maintain a minimum wage," you can stop reading right now. Interesting, though, that there is no such power; if that were true, this would be the end of the argument. Unfortunately, it's not.

In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed stipulating a 25-cent-per-hour wage floor while restricting employees to a 44-hour workweek. No surprise here, it was instigated by wonderful Progressive President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This link explains a little more, if you're interested: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912435,00.html. Now, every State in the Union has its own minimum wage, which is fine: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People" (Amendment 10). In all reality, this means the States can do what they please though the federal government cannot (if you'd like more on this subject, see the previous post on this blog). As it turns out, even without the help of Big Brother, each State has its own minimum wage law with 19 of them paying their employees beyond what federal law dictates.

The argument for minimum wage usually goes something like this:

Person A: "Minimum wage is good because if we didn't have it, people would be poor since companies are so evil and hate people."

Person B: "...Yea."

...but it should go more like this:

Person A: "We must have a minimum wage because otherwise companies would pay employees a fraction of what they need to survive."

Person B: "No one is forcing them to work there. If they demand a higher wage for their skill set, they are free to seek one."

Person A: "What about those who can't afford to find another job? Or those who didn't attend college, have five kids and are stuck flipping burgers during the day and cleaning office buildings at night? "

Person B: "I can match you anecdotal story for anecdotal story but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? As minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living, canceling out the minimum wage increase."

Person A: "That's nonsense! You just don't care about people. PEOPLE NOT PROFIT! PEOPLE NOT PROFIT!"

Person B: "Listen, if you want to have a rational discussion without yell--

Person A: "PEOPLE NOT PROFIT" -swings fist at person B-

Maybe the last few lines aren't how that conversation should go, but when Person B said "As minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living, canceling out the minimum wage increase," he was right. Look at it this way:

1. Federal law dictates a minimum wage increase from $5.85 in 2007 to $7.25 in 2009.

2. A grocery store must now pay their average employee $4,400 more in 2009 than in 2007.

3. Said employee now has $4,400 more than they would have two years ago.

4. Grocery store raises prices to cover the higher cost of its employees.

5. Employee now pays more for onions, tomatoes and peppers in the grocery store. Also, as other companies were affected by the minimum wage increase as well, the employee now pays more for TVs at Best Buy, furniture at Ashley, electricity from Power Co., fuel at Shell and on and on and on.

6. Federal law dictates a minimum wage increase from $7.25 in 2009 to $8.50 in 2011.

7. Repeat.

This is another great argument for Amendment 10. If a high-school dropout in Utah is unable to find work at $7.25/hour, in theory they should be able to go to Idaho and find work for $5.00/hour. Liberals look at this as a pay cut, but in reality you weren't receiving the $7.25 anyway, and $5.00 beats the hell out of $0.00 associated with not having a job (then we run into unemployment insurance which, many times, brings in more than the minimum wage, but we'll cover next time). A potential employee should be able to set their own wage for their own labor, but a minimum wage simply won't allow it.

Bottom line, if the States wish to enforce minimum wage laws of their own, that is fine. However, the federal government has absolutely no power to do so.

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The above is the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. While it's easy enough to understand, even more simply it means: "Hey States--the Congress has 18 things it can do and that's it. Anything else--it's up to your or your citizens." Our current President once described our Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government must do on your behalf." For possibly the first time in my life, I agree with Barack Obama.

He's right. The Constitution says what the federal government can't do to you. Where Obama and I (or any conservative or libertarian) go our separate ways is why our founding documents contain those words. Obama looks at it as "...the Constitution reflected an enormous blindspot in this culture that carries on into this day and that the Framers had this same blindspot." He goes on to say the Constitution "...reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." The problem with this line of thinking is it's, well, wrong. It was by design the U.S. Constitution limited the federal government. The Founders came here from a country that controlled every aspect of their lives (interesting parallel: a few months back the EPA held a contest where people were supposed to make a video showing how great it was that no part of their lives went untouched by government regulation). Read through the Declaration of Independence sometime, it lists over twenty different reasons for breaking away from England's oppressive and tyrannical King George III. The Founders wrote the Declaration, and later the Constitution, in order to free themselves and all Americans from an overbearing government.

The Founders limited the federal government on purpose, effectively creating States that could become laboratories for good ideas. If the people living there didn't like something they could "vote with their feet" and move away. If people from one state thought another state had a good thing going, they could head on over and reap the perceived rewards. A very basic example would be New York vs. New Jersey and their respective income tax rates. In New Jersey, someone making under $35,000 is taxed at 1.75%. In New York, the same income is taxed at 6.85%. Those looking to escape New York's high taxes can flee to New Jersey and retain nearly 5% more of their money. And when you're only making $35K, that 5% is pretty important. That was the design. The federal tax rate for $35,000 is 25%. You don't like it? Tough. The only way to escape that is to leave the country. This can be applied to anything the federal government does and any program they run--they're inescapable.

I was going to close this post by saying something akin to "What Obama doesn't understand is the Founders didn't "miss" something when they wrote the Constitution, they left it out intentionally." The problem with that sentence is it's not that Obama doesn't understand what the Founders did, it's that he doesn't like it. And you know what? That's fine. Contained in the Constitution is a way to change the Constitution--through the amendment process. If he believes the government should provide healthcare (which he does), create an amendment. If he wants the federal government to provide student loans (which through the new healthcare law, it does), add an amendment. If he wants control of General Motors (check), write an amendment. The problem is he's done all of the above without going through the amendment process, not only destroying State's rights in the process, but circumventing the Constitution completely.

Obama may not agree with our Founder's decision to limit federal power, but as it stands, anything not enumerated to the Congress by the eighteen powers are left to the states. This was no accident.

Buy a Home, Get "Obama Money!"

I just recently purchased a home. Actually, I began looking to buy a home but soon realized building one would be only marginally more expensive. Also, I could get more of what I wanted by choosing the floor plan, interior and exterior materials and make different tweaks here and there. Win-win. I began looking for a home when the Obama Administration's "Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan" kicked in back in early 2009. The section that applied to me was the whole "Buy a house and get $8,000 back as a tax credit." The idea behind this plan was those who couldn't really afford the down payment on a new home (I'm including myself in this group) could now secure a loan, make the initial payment and amend their taxes so they'd receive the $8K in 6-8 weeks. Depending on the price of the home, this worked out to paying the majority of a 4.5% down payment on a $200,000 home. Free money. Well, kind of.

When this program (similar to Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Cash for Appliances, Cash for Buying Crap You Can't Afford and Shouldn't be Purchasing But the Government Knows Best and Thinks Injecting 1.2 Trillion Dollars Worth of Tax Money into the Economy to Try and Save or Create 3 Million Jobs--that last one is not the "official" name) came about, I couldn't believe the federal government was really going to do it. I thought, "Yea, good idea, let's add to the nearly $11 trillion dollar debt. That'll make it easier to pay off." For the record, I wasn't in favor of Bush's spending while he was in office either, so let's put that argument to bed right now. These "Cash for" programs artificially inflate demand and restrict supply, driving prices up. Or if nothing else, they at least make an attempt to maintain the current price level in order to short circuit falling demand, which negatively affects our Gross Domestic Product. This gives the illusion that the economy is still growing. So the government will throw money at the automobile market, the appliance market and now the housing market in order to drive those who otherwise wouldn't--or couldn't--take the leap by themselves. The problem with doing this is simple: once the government funds run out, those who shouldn't buy don't and demand naturalizes back to the level the market dictates. We saw this in action earlier this week as the housing plan is now exhausted, pushing June home sales to the second lowest month on record. So anyone who was seriously considering buying a home now has one, meaning it will be months, if not years, before demand reignites after being smothered by supply.

These government programs are complete nonsense and only serve to collect votes for the Congressmen who pass them, not better the economy as they'd like you to think. The people who participate in these programs can be called "zero liability voters" (Andrew Wilkow coined this term and concept) and for this year, I am one. A zero liability voter is someone who doesn't pay any taxes. Now, there's a difference between filling out a tax form and actually paying taxes and this is it: if, when you receive your tax refund in May/June and you've received more money back from the government than you've paid, you're not paying taxes, you're a zero liability voter. This is not always a pejorative, though it can be. Since I decided to build a house and participate in the government program, I will receive back more money than I paid in taxes this year, making me a zero liability voter. The difference between people like me and others is I will not support any candidate for office that runs on this type of wealth re-distribution.

However misguided/wrong/stupid this tax credit was and even though I've further debased it in this post, I still accepted it. Sound hypocritical? Yea, it does and it is--to a point. The difference between people like me, who are principally against government handouts but take have taken them and others who scream for more of them is this: I do not vote for the politicians that believe in this nonsense. If a candidate for--pick an office--runs on the platform of "Cash for..." you can bet I'll be casting my vote for the other guy. Now, one could argue that if my wishes had been fulfilled and Obama hadn't made it into the Oval Office I wouldn't be able to purchase a house right now--and they'd be right. And that would be okay. How I break this down is simple: look out for number one.

Seriously. Here's some interesting math. In 2005, the average income in Idaho for a household with one worker was $47,975.00. Let's round up and call it $50K. Based on 2010 tax rates, the federal government will withhold $8,700 of that. In Idaho, after you make $24,737, they take 7.8% of the rest, meaning you lose another $4,000. Social Security removes about 6%, so there goes another $3,000. Lastly, you'll lose another $600 to medicare. So at year's end when you look at your $50,000 salary, you realize you only get $33,700. Total taxes taken out--just a tick over 1/3rd. 33% of your money goes to taxes before cost-of-living even enters the picture. Let's look at that: in rural Idaho you pretty much need a vehicle to get around. Let's say it's a Civic and costs about $350/mo. Food (not including restaurants): $300/mo. Clothing: $100/mo. Okay, totaled up that's $9,000 over the course of the year, resulting in $24,700 left from the original $50,000. Now here's the big one, the reason for this post and why this paragraph may have seemed like a tangent: the house payment. Using my limited experience in this arena I'm going to use a conservative number of $1,200/mo. Take $14,400 away and now you're looking at a little over $10K in your pocket. Oh, and feel free to pay for electricity ($150/mo.), water & sewer ($100/mo.). Don't forget gasoline (again, conservatively, $100/mo)Property taxes vary widely so we'll leave them out. When everything is said and done, that $50K you started with has become $5,800, about half the cost of a down payment on a $200,000 home.

So after the government takes what it wants and you pay for what you need, you have about $6,000 to spend however-the-hell-you-want. My point is this: when, after the course of a year you have about $6,000 left over (and most people don't--they simply blow it), the government giving you $8,000 towards a home looks pretty damn good, doesn't it? The problem with this is if they hadn't taken 1/3 of your money away from you in the first place that $8K, though still attractive, becomes less so. In fact, all they really did was take your money, run it through bureaucracy after bureaucracy--and then given it back. I think trusting you with your own money in the first place would've saved some time and taxpayer money. I look at it this way: if the government wants to take, at gunpoint, 1/3 of my income and blow it on "Cash for" crap for everyone, I better try to get some of it back. So I did.

Side-note: I don't make $50K, or really, even very close to that but it was a nice round number to use. I plan to surpass that within a few years and eventually retire on tens-of-millions. Want to have some real fun? See how much the government will take then.

For those who are curious, references here:

1. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S1902&-geo_id=04000US16&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en

2. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S1902&-geo_id=04000US16&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en

3.http://www.themoneyalert.com/Tax-Tables.html

Health Care is a Good, Not a Right.

Thanks to our Founding Fathers, those of us living in the United States of America have certain unalienable (as in, they can't be taken away) rights granted to us by God--or at least, that's how the Founders saw them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You'll find that line not in the Constitution but instead contained in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. However, the theme of that same sentence is echoed in the first ten amendments to our Constitution, frequently referred to as the Bill of Rights. If you'd like a quick read, click here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 (sidenote: it's important to realize that "rights" are individual not communal, meaning they apply to every individual, not just a group of people. "Powers" are relegated to government. Therefore, the government does not have a right to do anything, only the power to do so. These powers are granted by the people to the government, not the other way around). The Founders did this not only because they believed in God, but because they felt it was very important to show there is a power higher than government. If we're granted our rights by God then we are born with them and become so equipped with our first breath of air. If we are given our rights by government, that very government can then take them away. This is why the phrase "endowed by our Creator" is so great because it establishes that government is not the end-all but that even it must respect its place in relation to a higher power.

You'll notice while reading the Bill of Rights that none, absolutely none, of them guarantee any type of product or service to anyone. Liberals love to say "Well, you have your right to bear arms so I should get my right to free healthcare." While there is SO MUCH wrong with that statement, let's focus on this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While the Second Amendment guarantees your right to own a gun, it does not say the government will provide you with one. In saying "healthcare is a human right" ignores what healthcare is--specifically, the care part. To foster healthcare, care is given by one individual to another, in this case, by a doctor to a patient. A doctor that has gone through years of medical school, payed hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree and spent countless hours practicing medicine. For you to say "you owe me healthcare because it's my right" is to ignore the rights of that doctor. As I mentioned earlier, the Bill of Rights doesn't award to anyone a type of physical product or service but instead lists individual rights that are not finite, meaning I can have the right to bear arms without infringing on your right to bear arms. There is no physical supply of that right, only the right itself. Healthcare is another story. If I'm in seeing a doctor, you can't be in seeing the same doctor. The hours in the day and people waiting for him are the limits placed on his care. Unless he wants to work 24 hours a day to provide his service, he must ration his care in a way he sees fit. To ignore those limits by making healthcare "free" and forcing him to open his doors to anyone makes the doctor a slave to those who want his care, which is taking rights away from one individual and giving them to another.

There is much, much more to this subject and in a couple of days I'll touch on why "free" healthcare isn't, and why, besides the slavery aspect, the new healthcare law is so overtly Unconstitutional that it's almost comical (hint: forcing Americans to purchase a product). For now, just realize a doctor's service is as finite as a landscaper's, an artist's, or a teacher's. You don't get free bushes in your yard, paintings on your walls, or a B- on your homework because you want them--healthcare is no different.

By the People

I originally began this post describing the first of the eighteen enumerated powers granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. After composing a few paragraphs I deleted the text. The reason I did that is because anyone is able to read the entire Constitution and come away with a pretty clear understanding of the document. Now, semantics always come into play and I'll address those issues when they arise. However, simply going through the eighteen powers like I did with the Preamble won't serve much of a purpose as you can glean most anything I can from the written lines by reading them yourself.

While I feel it was important to break down the Preamble like I did in my first post, that's not a direction I want to consistently take. There are many people out there who will say "Well, you didn't go to Harvard or Yale, you don't have a law degree, you didn't sit next to me in class and study under "Blah, blah" Law professor, so you can't possibly grasp what the Founders had in mind." This is not true. While many signatures at the bottom of that parchment were lawyers, the Constitution, like I mentioned in my last post, was a document by the People. It wasn't scrawled in the legalese, written-to-confuse language that our present Congress so loves to use. 4,500 words. That's our Constitution (about 7,000 once all 27 amendments are added). It was written on 4 sheets that measure about 28"x23" each (If written on paper sized 9.5"x11," there'd be fewer than 12 pages). Today's healthcare law? Over 2,000 pages. Interesting that it takes 2,000 pages to create a single law, but only 12 to design an entirely new republic. Nancy Pelosi famously said "We have to pass the healthcare bill so you can find out what's in it." Is that what Benjamin Franklin said before he signed the Constitution?

Today we are so far removed from a government "by the People" that even many ordinary citizens believe you must have formal training to go through our founding document and understand it. In fact, it wasn't until the early 1900's that law students started studying case law instead of Constitutional law. Before that time people would actually discuss the Constitution in their daily lives. When is the last time you sat down with anyone and actually conversed about those four sheets of parchment that makeup our government? Very, very slowly, the Constitution has moved from a common, everyday document that citizens knew inside-and-out into a highly academic, even abstract article that seems to have little affect on us anymore. That's not how it is supposed to be. You want to read the Constitution? Then do. It takes about 30 minutes, amendments and all. When reading, don't be surprised if a few lines standout from the rest and you think "That's what they're using to justify (insert law here)?!" I'm sure there will be situations in the future where I'll recap different sections and articles of the Constitution in order to better understand the point I'm trying to make at that time, but that won't be common practice. Anyone with internet access or a library card can find the document that begins with "We the People..." read it, and understand it. It doesn't take a scholar, it just takes a small bit of time and the desire go through it. So that's why the hand-holding ends with my first post and going forward, I'll do what I set out to do: show where our government by the People has trampled over the limits of The Eighteen.

The Preamble

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If you just skipped over that, try going back and reading it again. "We the People..." has become a tagline, a catchphrase, a marketing slogan. We learned it in school but didn't understand its value at the time and many of us still don't today. Now when we come across those three famous words scrawled across a poster, flier or even textbook, we look past them instead of at them. So, with my inaugural post on The Eighteen, let's actually look at those words, break them down, and try to understand what our Founders meant when they wrote them.

"We the People of the United States"

You'll notice the Preamble didn't start with "I, George Washington" or "I, Sam Adams," or even "We, the Founders." No, instead they chose "We the People." This was something never before done: the People would design, create and maintain a government where their voices could be represented and heard. While the Founders were great men, they placed no more significance on themselves than the rest of their fellow Americans, but included themselves in the masses with the words "We the People."

"...in order to form a more perfect Union"

This line serves to inform of the Founders' reasoning behind creating the Constitution. The word "form" is important because the Founders weren't adapting a previously-used article, or recycling an old idea, but creating--rather, forming--an entirely new and experimental type of government, an entirely new and experimental type of Union. The word Union signifies that though each state is separately sovereign in it's own right, all states are brought together to form a Union of States: The United States of America.

"...establish Justice,"

As John Adams said: "We are a nation of laws and not of men," the Founders put in place a government that would treat all men equally under the law. Under the Constitution, it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, young or old, black or white (more on that in a future post), but if laws are broken, punishment is distributed equally regardless of connections, class, Creed or stripe.

"...insure domestic Tranquility,"

This means to keep peace within our borders.

"...provide for the common defence,"

And to keep Americans within those borders safe from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

"...promote the general Welfare,"

The word "promote" is very important here and needs to be recognized as different from the word "provide." Promote's definition is "to contribute to the progress or growth of; further," while provide means "to furnish; supply." See the difference? The Second Amendment describes the "right to keep and bear arms," but nowhere does it say the government will provide said arms. Remember the saying "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime?" Of course you do because it's one of the most overused and self-righteous lines ever spoken. But using that quote we can show how promoting a man's ability to fish is different than providing fish to him. The Government can protect the man's right to fish by keeping within their eighteen powers, but this does not include providing him with a worms, a hook or a fishing pole.

"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"

We each feel the need to both protect our families and provide for our children (a generalization, to be sure, but one I believe holds true for the majority of Americans). The Founders called Liberty a "Blessing" because up until this point they had no experience with what most of us take for granted today. It's the difference between working hard to become wealthy and being born into it. As the Founders had come from a tyrannical government, securing this newfound Liberty meant to not only ensure that they themselves would reap its' fruit, but that their children, and ours, might as well.

"...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And there you have it, the Preamble to our founding document, the United States Constitution. The Constitution itself is about 7,000 words long and is the framework for our entire government. It's the oldest written constitution still in use today. While it could be argued that we've strayed very far from our Founding Fathers' original intent, 223 years ago, our Constitution began to take shape with the words "We the People..."

After reading that breakdown, hopefully you've come away with a thing or two you didn't know, or maybe you've just unearthed an idea you hadn't considered before. The reason for this first blog post, moreover, the idea behind this blog, is that it's important to realize the above grants no power to the Federal Government. When a person authors a book they usually write an introduction. Once the introduction is read can the rest of the book be skipped and still convey the meaning of the entire text? The answer of course, is no.The Preamble was just that, an introduction, to what the Founders would continue to lay out with the enumerated powers in the Constitution. There are eighteen of them and each was designed to restrict the power of the government so as to not trample the rights of the people from whom its power is derived. The Eighteen.