Common Sense defined: Sound and prudent judgment based on simple perception of the situation or facts. 

This sounds like a pretty simple definition, does it not?  But, unfortunately, when it comes to the government, politicians, and bureaucrats, nothing is ever ‘simple.’  Especially when it comes to the government having ‘your’ safety on ‘their’ mind.  And in researching government regulation regarding ‘safety’ the number one thing that popped out on my computer screen was airport security.  So let us delve into the realms of common sense vs. government in the big question of ‘safety.’ 

Let us start with some numbers.  Each Boeing 747 costs $317 million; a 777 costs $284 million; a 737 costs $80 million; and a giant Airbus 555+ passenger A380 costs $375 million.

Now ponder this, who would keep us safer?  The FAA and TSA or the airline company CEO’s?  And when we are thinking of safety, let’s keep it simple.  There’s security, take off, flight, and landing.  And the government’s main talking point (dare I say, propaganda?) about airline safety is security.  Right about now you may be telling yourself, ‘The CEO’s only care about money, they don’t care about their passengers.’  That statement may be true, but it still belies itself; because if the CEO’s only care about money that means, by definition, they DO care (with no help from the FAA or TSA) about their passengers via their concern for the billions of dollars worth of aircraft they own.  In essence, common sense would dictate that the airline CEO’s would care enough to see adequate money was spent on maintenance and security to ensure their property, and thus their source of more money, is ‘safe.’  And if their property (or investment) is safe, by proxy, so are the passengers.

Now, someone may comment and say the airline companies are not authorized to handle the ‘security’ and that only the police or federal law enforcement officers can do it.  But I would have to argue that TSA agents are NOT law enforcement officers.  They have NO authority to arrest and they can only call a real law enforcement officer should a problem arise.  At best, they are glorified security guards (or ‘rent a cops’).

Now it’s time to evaluate the government’s ‘judgment’ in the name of ‘safety.’  The government has their TSA agents, which I have addressed and to which the CEO’s can hire an equivalent.  But, in spite of all their talking points, what has the government done to actually keep us ‘safer?’  We all hear their words, but actions speak so much louder than words.  All the regulation in the world has not stopped, say, air traffic controllers from falling asleep.  They’ve determined that a three inch, crouching, camouflaged, plastic toy with a gun was branded a ‘firearm’ and banned from a flight.  A man’s 8 year old son, and New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent flyer, must be hassled because he shares the same name of a suspicious person and his name is ‘on the list.’  Troy Smith’s Heisman Trophy was shipped home because airport security would not allow it on the plane.  A man was not allowed to take a bottle of water on a plane; the reason was the bottle of water could not be x-rayed; when the man asked how they screened bottles of water already inside he was told that every item goes through the x-ray machine (what?).  The FAA has determined that everyone about to board a plane is assumed to be planning a terrorist act, to include seniors in wheelchairs, cancer patients in adult diapers, toddlers, nuns, pilots (pilots?), flight attendants, businessmen, movie stars, legislators, teachers, and everyone else; but they seem to ignore those who buy one-way tickets and have no luggage.  Speaking of pilots, a pilot was selected for a random screening and asked to remove his hat, shoes, belt, and jacket and was electronically wanded; when the pilot asked about it he was told they needed to ensure he didn’t have anything that could be used to take control of the aircraft (they were afraid the pilot was going to take control of the aircraft? really?!?).  I don’t know, but it’s safe to assume that a pilot does not need to carry anything on board an airplane to ‘take control of it.’  Still on the subject of pilots, Osama bin Laden has about 53 half siblings, 12 of whom have FAA pilot’s licenses with eligibility to fly aircraft anywhere in the U.S.  The TSA mandated that 45,000 airport workers must take ‘muslim sensitivity’ training.  A balding, 67 year old American male gets pulled out of line because his can of deodorant and tube of Crest were ‘too large.’ (I guess they thought it was a lethal combination).  A man who had made multiple trips to a terrorist training camp was credibly alerted as a potential threat, BY HIS OWN FATHER, but was somehow allowed to get on board a flight anyway.  The known terrorist Mustaf Jama flew from London to Somalia using his sister’s passport and wearing a woman’s niqab because everyone was too afraid to lift the veil and look at his face (that fear is just as prevalent here in the U.S.).  A New Jersey muslim group launched a nationwide effort to record complaints about muslims being wrongfully detained or questioned at airports; NOT to file lawsuits, but to get the sources of the problems corrected (never mind that muslims are the source of our airport problems and inconveniences, not the victims of it).  Finally, the ACLU (not government, I know, but I couldn’t resist pointing out the mentality) filed a lawsuit challenging Logan International Airport’s ‘behavior pattern recognition program’ on the grounds that it ‘condones’ racial and ethnic profiling (I guess they prefer sensitivity to safety).  The FAA and TSA seem to be perfectly content in wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, and an insane amount of man hours, in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened.  The government, through their dog and pony show, also gives people a false sense of security. 

At the TSA, political correctness seems to take precedence over security (and common sense).  And that’s proven by the TSA’s willingness to inconvenience and harass 100% of airline travelers in their effort NOT to ‘offend’ a small percentage of ‘possible’ dangerous followers of a fanatical religion bent on the destruction of every ‘infidel’ on the planet.  But we have all been placed in a position where we are more afraid of being accused of racism than we are of death.  Let’s face it, the government is screening for potential weapons instead of potential terrorists.  Is that really the common sense approach?  And wouldn’t common sense also dictate that since the airline companies have so much to lose they would certainly do a better job than an entire truckload of bureaucrats?  Bureaucrats who have nothing to lose (except your tax dollars).

And do you know the worst part of all?  An article about common sense should be simple and short, but when it’s a matter of the government’s application of common sense (or lack thereof) it turns out to be the longest one I’ve written thus far.  Paradoxical, is it not?

Taxes

Taxes defined: 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.  2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

It’s interesting to note the two major philosophies concerning taxes in this country today.  An article concerning those philosophies would probably have to be done in at least five parts and still end up being too long and convoluted.  So, instead, I will give two small examples and point out some indisputable facts.

Passed in 1990, and started in 1991, the congress and president implemented a 10% federal luxury tax on yachts (or “boats” above $100,000).  That same tax also applied to cars valued over $30,000, jewelry and furs valued over $10,000, and private planes valued over $250,000.  Although all of the industries were adversely affected by this tax, for the sake of simplicity, I will only address the ill effects on the yacht industry.  I know what you’re thinking, “Rich people buying yachts? I can’t afford a yacht, so who cares?”  Not only did this 10% tax NOT generate the revenue the federal government hoped for, it had more devastating consequences.  Boat retailers reported a 77% drop in sales and boat builders had to lay off approximately 25,000 people.  Ironically, one of the states hit the hardest by this legislation was Massachusetts, home of Senator Ted Kennedy.  The same Ted Kennedy who helped champion the legislation.  It is also worthy to note that these luxury taxes were so devastating they have all been repealed.  

Fast forward to the present, where California has instituted the “Amazon Tax.”  http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/08/15/californias-amazon-tax-already-proving-a-bust/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29  (what a long url, huh?).  The final toll of how this tax will affect California is yet to be seen; but with Amazon, Overstock.com, and other online entrepreneurs bailing on California the results will most likely be obvious and predictable. 

So why do taxes (even on the rich or luxury items or large corporations) adversely effect everything in its path?  It’s simple causality.  The cause is the tax (all in the name of making some ‘pay their fair share’ or ‘generating revenue) and the effect is companies not being able to compete, jobs being sent overseas, and employees being laid off.  And this is not a theory, but an indisputable fact.  And no amount of blaming of ‘evil, greedy’ rich will ever change the final outcome.  Because, at the end of the day, when the government touches something in our society they effect a number of other things down the chain (and more often than not, in a bad way). 

Now, going down the list (just off the top of my head), who is affected?  And let’s leave out the owners or CEO’s.  You have lower level managers/supervisors, call takers, sales rep’s, all other employees, the property itself (which generates property taxes), computer technicians, janitors, building maintenance crews, UPS and FEDEX deliverers, auto makers (for making the UPS and FEDEX trucks), plane manufactures (for making the carrier planes), pilots, more maintenance, crude oil production, petrochemical companies and refineries, truck drivers who carry gasoline and jet fuel, gas stations, gas station attendants, insurance companies, insurance sales reps,  and power/utility companies.  And I’m sure I left many out.  All of the above listed will feel the effect when entire large companies or corporations move out of entire states.  All of the above listed either pay or generate taxes for the government in some way, shape, or form (either through buying, selling, or moving products). 

So, in essence, in the government’s attempt to ‘tax the rich’ affects so many people in so many ways that the final cost can never be counted.  History has proven this and, unfortunately, I believe it will be proven again in California before it is all said and done.

So, what’s to do?  I have always advocated a flat corporate tax and a federal sales tax on everyone else.  This would eliminate volume upon volume of tax code and, as a bonus, eliminate the need for most of the 100,000+ IRS employees (which is just one of many bloated government bureaucracies).  With the flat corporate tax, coupled with the elimination of over regulation, there would be no need for ‘loopholes’ or ‘tax breaks.’  And the federal sales tax would insure that everyone would pay their fair share of taxes (from the rich, who buy more; to the criminal or illegal alien, who don’t pay; right down to the politicians, who are commonly found out to be ‘tax cheats’). 

As once said by Laurence J. Peter, “America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation.”  Life, more often than not, is a paradox; and politicians only make it worse.

Liberty defined: Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

Tyranny defined: Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 

I think on these two definitions and wonder at our current state of affairs in this country.  One has but to dwell on a quote by Abraham Lincoln, “We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.  With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.  Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty.  And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.” 

Now, I know what you are thinking; “We are not Russia, China, or Iran,” because we don’t commit blatant violations against liberty for all to see.  But the reader must remember, rarely does tyranny start out in extreme forms or under the “jack boot,” such as people commonly have the misinformed belief that tyranny established itself in Nazi Germany.  Although, sometimes tyranny evolves faster or slower given geographical location, past history, and the current mental state of the populace (Herd Mentality, Mob Mentality, or what I like to call “Hollywood” Mentality), it evolves nonetheless.  And, sad fact as it is, the people of Nazi Germany not only handed over their liberties to Hitler, they cheered him on all along the way.  

So where, you might ask, are we in the evolution of tyranny here in the good ‘ole U.S. of A.?  In my humble opinion, we are at a cross roads.  I won’t bore you with arguments of the pros and cons of left vs. right, for that is not my intent.  I simply endeavor to gauge where we are on the “tyranny scale.”  And on that scale we, as a nation, have been selling ourselves out in the form of government regulation (ie, government control).  And by nation, I mean us all.  The average person, who is willing to sit back silently and do nothing, or voice no opinion, in the face of oppression (as Burke said, “All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”).  To the corporations, who lobby the government to regulate their businesses in such a way as to stifle any competition.  To the politicians themselves, who sit back fat, dumb, and happy collecting that lobbyist money to get rich; or worse, politicians who regulate in the name of “protecting the people from themselves” or “creating jobs for the community.”  I could give examples (and will upon request), but finding these facts require but a simple Google search; so I won’t bore you (or be accused of giving “talking points”) because, at the end of the day, the simple fact remains that government is out of control and, in order to benefit the politically privileged, the government is using their tax and regulatory powers to loot and plunder the citizenry.  The politicians have created for themselves a ruling class (or “new royalty” as I like to say), all the while pitting us against each other; rich vs. poor, black vs. white, left vs. right.   

One of the obvious adverse effects of increased government control and over regulation is our current economic state.  It is government control via eminent domain, zoning, regulation, taxes, fees, licenses, etc. that infringe upon homeowner’s and property owner’s rights, new entrepreneurs, existing small businesses, larger corporations, and everyone in between, and it’s choking our economy to death; because it causes nothing but fear and uncertainly.  As Chip Mellor, the president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, said, “If the nation is looking to the federal government to create jobs in America, it is looking in the wrong place.  If we want to grow our economy, we must remove government imposed barriers to honest enterprise at the city and state levels.  Remove those barriers, and you will see a return to the optimism and opportunity that are hallmarks of the American Dream.”  Here is a surprisingly accurate, and scary, video regarding exactly what I mean when I refer to the over regulation effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQscE3Xed64&feature=player_embedded   

And, with all that being said, we are back at the crossroads.  All of us left with the big question of the early 21^st century, “What to do?”  I’ve listed a few indisputable facts that plague our society today.  Yet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other problems in our society.  Problems that range from stifling our economy to taking away our rights and freedoms on the individual level.  I would but the reader evaluate, research, and stay vigilant as the upcoming 2012 elections get nearer and nearer.  The crossroads, which to me is obvious, is balanced on a knife’s edge.  Stray too far in the wrong direction and we may just find ourselves under the “jack boot.”  And, with it generally being “politics as usual” in Washington, there may be no hope anyway, even if we try.  But how will you, dear reader, go out?  With a bang?  Or with a whimper?