Thursday, July 23, 2020

The Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, is our National Foundational Document

We're often told that the USA is not a Christian nation. However, Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, justified the Civil War, and by implication his Emancipation Proclamation (freeing the slaves in the Confederate States), by appealing to the Declaration of Independence as our foundational document, even more foundational than the US Constitution. That Declaration serves as the very core piece of why we were justified in seceding from Great Britain and in forming a new nation, and why the Civil War was fought.

That Declaration states quite clearly that "all men are created equal", and "that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights", and that "governments are instituted among men" to secure these rights.

That document further states that the signers are "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world" for the rightness of their declaration, and did so "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".

So when Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, he referred back to this document as the justification for the US, and for the subsequent Civil War, so that we, "one nation, under God", might resolve to be dedicated to the unfinished work of the signers of the Declaration, and so that our nation "shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

I say all this to say this: the US Constitution, while being our supreme law regulating our government, is not the supreme law (or even supreme document - the Declaration is) that regulates our nation. A US President who reminds the people of this is a president who could turn the country back to its Creator, and to our unalienable rights, and to freedom.

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

The US Civil War: About Independence, or about Slavery?

If Utah wants to allow polygamy, and the Federal Government says, "No", then Utah would be within its right to secede, provided polygamy was voluntary and not mandated to its citizens.

If Utah wants to force polygyny (multiple wives), and the Federal Government says, "No", and any of the women in Utah object to being in a polygynous marriage, then Utah's attempt to secede must be allowed only if the objectors, and future objectors, are, and will be, allowed to leave Utah.

If the Confederate States of America want to force servitude on Blacks, and the Federal Government says, "No", and any of the Blacks in the CSA object to being enslaved, then the CSA's attempt to secede must be allowed only if the objectors, and future objectors, are, and will be, allowed to leave the CSA.

The War Between the States was not about "Independence"; it was about the issue of "Slavery". And if it were about the philosophical ideal of "Independence", the advocates were inconsistent with their ideal, and they were hypocritical, demanding independence for themselves while denying it to the people they enslaved.
 
The Confederate Flag evokes among many a pride in "Us" of the Southern States, when "we" were an independent nation. But that flag is flown from a pole of, not independence, but slavery. As fond as I am of the independence associated with the rebel flag, I have to acknowledge that this association has been only in my mind, and not in reality. The US Civil War was about slavery, not independence.

Thursday, July 02, 2020

How We Can Make Every American Citizen Wealthy in One Generation

The average Social Security monthly check is about $1400. That's $16,800 per year. Let's round it down to 16K.

Rather than focus on government pay-outs of $16,000 a year at the end of someone's life, maybe for five, ten, or thirty years, let's put that money to work at the start of someone's life.

For every baby born to legal American citizens (or a mother legitimately in process of becoming a citizen), we give $30,000 to the baby.

This money is broken up into three individual tax-deferred savings accounts.

One account is a normal IRA, and can't be touched (without hefty penalties) until the person reaches age 60.

The second account is an Education Payment Plan (EPP). The funds are untouchable until age 18, and if a degree is not earned from an accredited institution by age 28, 3/4s of the fund is returned to the government, and the remaining quarter can be rolled over into either of the other two accounts. If a two-year degree is earned, the government return is only half. If the person dies prior to 28, all the funds return to the government.

And the third is a Health Savings Plan (HSP). The funds are untouchable prior to age 24 (the child is hopefully on the parents' insurance until then), at which time the funds can be used to pay insurance premiums or qualified medical expenses. In the case of death prior to age 60, half the funds are accessible to the surviving family, and half are returned to the government. After 60, one-quarter goes to the government, and the survivors keep 75%.

Withdrawals after maturation dates are subject to normal taxation.

Assuming an average rate of interest on each account of 6% with no additional contributions being made, the EPP would have about $25,500 in the account. Maybe not enough to pay completely for college, but it'd help a lot.

Same situation with the HSP, the person would have about $40,500. Again, not much considering how expensive medicine and insurance premiums are, but a help.

And the same conditions with the IRA nets the retiree nearly $330,000. Not a huge nest egg, but for doing nothing, it ain't bad.

Now, let's take those same accounts, and have the person add $10 to each account every month (that's $30 a month). The EPP jumps to $32,000; the HSP goes to $46,500; and the IRA goes to $394,000.

But let's look at six other scenarios.

1 - An interest rate of 8% instead of 6%.

EPP = $40,000
HSP = $63,500
IRA = $1,000,000 (that's one million!)

2 - An interest rate of 6% and $100/month contributions

EPP = $65,500
HSP = $101,500
IRA = $970,000

3 - An interest rate of 8% and $100/month contributions

EPP = $85,000
HSP = $143,500
IRA = $2,500,000

4 - An initial investment of $60,000 instead of $30K, with 6% and $10/month

EPP = 61,000
HSP = $87,000
IRA = $724,000

5 - $60K, 6%, $100/month contributions

EPP = $94,000
HSP = $142,000
IRA = $1,300,000

6 - $60K, 8%, $100/month

EPP = $125,000
HSP = $207,000
IRA = $3,500,000

All this, for the cost of two (or four years in the case of #s 4, 5, and 6) of an average Social Security payout. The go-getters would be more aggressive with their monthly contributions (for example, I'm paying quite a bit more to my monthly IRA - this plan would have saved me a lot!), but even the laziest do-nothings would still wind up with a nice little retirement package ($330K would pay out $2000 a month for almost 14 years (taxed, so maybe back down to $1400/month take-home), even without the continued growth of the fund as it was paid out - so even longer considering that growth). Plus, much of the initial investment by the government would be recouped by the early deaths and non-college grads.

This would not replace all the social services needed, but it'd make a huge dent, and perhaps more importantly, reduce the governmental Nanny state.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the numbers work.