San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 12, 2012

I Demand Reparations

Every once in a while some silly Congressman will regurgitate the idea that American taxpayers need to give money to blacks to make up for the fact that some of their ancestors were slaves.  The idea of taking money from one group and giving it to another in a futile attempt to atone for some previous sin is known as making reparations.  It is worth some time to consider the issue of reparations.
I have probably already offended some black people, and the white people who like to represent them, because I used the word 'black' to describe their race.  I don't know any black people. As a result, I do not know what black people like to be called.  I do not know if they prefer black or colored or negro or African-American.  There are other words used to describe the black race that are deemed to be so evil they cannot be spoken or written.  Although black people often refer to each other using those terms, it is generally understood that nobody else is allowed to use those words.  It must be a club sort of thing.  I can respect that.  I have belonged to clubs with secret words as well.   It is not my intention to be offensive so I will not use those words.  In any case, if I ever meet a black person I will ask him what he likes to be called and then I will call him that.
From what I can tell by reading the papers, I think it is true that most blacks today prefer to be called African-Americans.  I could be wrong on this because I do not know who wrote the articles I have read.  They could have been written by white people who want black people to call themselves African-Americans.  Regardless, I have a problem with black people calling themselves African-American.  Blacks were imported to this country during the colonial period.  The slave trade had basically ended prior to the start of the Civil War in 1861.  So, for the sake of illustration, I will assume that blacks were imported to this country from 1660 to 1860.  I define a generation as 40 years.  It therefore necessarily follows that the minimum number of generations a black person living in this country today can trace his ancestry back to Africa is 4.  For most blacks who can trace their ancestry back to Africa it is probably closer to 5-8 generations before they get back to the original person who actually came from Africa.
Although no government survey or census form allows me to declare this truth, I am a Welsh-American.  In fact, I am a third generation Welsh-American.  That means I can trace my direct ancestry back to Wales more recently than any black can trace his ancestry back to Africa.  Yet when I describe myself as being a Welsh-American I am castigated by my fellow citizens.  I am made fun of and ridiculed by those who do not believe I should be allowed to describe myself as a Welsh-American.  My point is this, if blacks can call themselves African-Americans then I most certainly can call myself a Welsh-American.  That is my right and I am invoking it.
Now we need to consider some facts about slavery.  Consider the following truths about Welsh enslavement:
  1. Many linguistic scholars believe that the word 'welsh' was once used as the word for 'slave'.  This belief is based upon the fact that the Welsh people, being a generally docile folk who believe in minding their own business and leaving other people alone, were prone to being enslaved by the more warrior types who lived around them. 
  2. Starting in the 12th century the Welsh were systematically enslaved by the Norwegians (Vikings), the Irish, and most recently, by the British.  There is no history of the Welsh ever having enslaved any other group of people.  There is evidence that some Welshmen were involved in ruling over black slaves in the Caribbean but it is also recognized that those who did so were sent there as slaves themselves by other nations in Europe.  
  3. I do not know and was unable to find any figures that would indicate how many of the Welsh people were enslaved at any particular time.  Given our reputation for taking care of our fellow Welshmen I expect that when one Welshman was enslaved, others would join him in support.  My best guess then would be that rates of Welsh enslavement were quite high, although I do not know for sure.
Now we need to consider some truths about black enslavement.  According to the United States Census report for 1860 (one year before the start of the Civil War):
  1. There were 27 million white citizens.  Of those 27 million citizens, 385,000 owned slaves.  Eight million white citizens lived in the slave holding states.  If all slave owners were white, and they were not, then 1.4% of the total white citizenship owned slaves and 4.8% of southern whites owned slaves.  Conversely, 98.6% of white citizens did not own slaves and 95.2% of southern whites did not own slaves.
  2. There were 4.5 million blacks in the United States.  3.9 million of the 4.5 million blacks lived in the southern states.  Of that 3.9 million blacks living in the southern states, 262,000 were free men.  The greatest number of free blacks lived in New Orleans (11,000).  28% of the free blacks living in New Orleans owned slaves.  This led Duke University historian John Franklin to conclude "the statistics show that, when becoming free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters themselves."
  3. There were six blacks in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves.  One black master owned 152 slaves.  In Charleston, South Carolina, 125 free blacks owned black slaves.  Six of those 125 owned 10 or more slaves.  There were 69 free blacks in North Carolina who owned slaves.
 I suspect you can see where this is going.  If a modern black citizen has a right to some of my money simply because there is a 1.4 chance in 100 that one of my ancestors might have owned one of his ancestors several hundred years ago, then I most certainly have a right to money from the Norwegians, the Irish and the British.  I am reminded of Charlie Brown's littler sister when she wrote a letter to Santa Clause telling him to make it easy on himself and just bring her cash, preferably in 10s and 20s.  When Charlie read her letter and expressed his disgust she retorted, "I just want my fair share.  I just want what is coming to me."  Well, if blacks in this country are going to receive reparations from the US taxpayer, then I demand my right to reparations from those evil European whites who enslaved my forefathers.  I just want my fair share.  I just want what is coming to me.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Global Warming Is Not Quite Global

One thing my mama taught me while I was growing up was that I should never trust someone who keeps changing his story.  She also taught me to be very wary of anybody who keeps changing the meaning of the words that he uses.  Most of all I was to run away from anybody who used a word in a way that nobody else in the world uses it.  She convinced me that people of this ilk are not to be trusted and probably have an interest in getting my money, one way or another.  I think she is right and that her advice is sound.  That brings me to the topic of global warming.....err.....I mean climate change...err....or whatever word the greenies are using for their favorite doctrine today.
We have all taken note of the fact that greenies no longer use the term "global warming".  Even they realized that there is just too much evidence to the contrary.  They had to come up with some other phrase to advance their socialist doctrines of environmentally inspired state interference in the free market.  The new phrase is "man made climate change".  Now that's a good one!  As I am writing today's post it is about 50 degrees outside.  My office is a warm 68 degrees.  The reason my office is warmer than the outside air temperature is due to the fact that I live inside a man made structure that has a furnace in good operating condition.  Therefore, I am responsible for man made climate change.  Make a law against me.  Something must be done before I destroy the world.
The idea that a couple of billion human beings loosely scattered around on one quarter of the surface area of the entire earth can be responsible for dramatic fluctuations in the daily weather is preposterous.  It is the utmost of arrogance.  It is more than stupid.  One little volcanic eruption on some desolate island somewhere in the world has more impact upon the climate of the world than the daily activities of every human being that exists.  However, volcanic eruptions are not subject to state control and regulation.  Hurricanes cannot be regulated.  Tornadoes are not subject to human control. The wind blows wherever it wills.   Plus, greenies do not want to regulate these naturally occurring events anyway.  Their goal is not to "protect the environment".  Their goal is to persecute and prosecute businesses operating in the free market.  I think we all realize that greenies are modern versions of cold war communists.  Environmental protection (as if such a thing could even be done or is ever necessary) is a smokescreen designed to hide their plan for political power and control over profit seeking businesses.
An article in today's Denver Post caught my eye.  It is entitled "More Antarctic ice in a warming world."  The subtitle says, "As the Arctic shrinks and the southern continent grows, scientists suspect humans still involved."  So there you have it.  The emphasis is no longer upon global warming or even climate change. The emphasis is now simply upon the unproven assertion that whatever happens in the natural world must have been caused by humans.  Also, by definition, whatever happens in the natural world that is human caused must be bad for the health of the environment, whatever that means.  So the logically necessary conclusion is that we need some expansive government bureau to create new laws, and employ lots of greenies at high salaries and lifetime pensions, to protect the environment from the ravages of human action.   I think we are being set up here.
The article, written by Seth Borenstein of the AP, says that the Antarctic ice set a new size record this month.  7.51 million square miles of Antarctica are covered with ice.  The records have been kept since 1979 and there has been a steady increase in the amount of ice measured every year since then.  Seth tells us that "this subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising...but makes sense the more it is studied."  Note the selected use of the word 'subtle'.  When the ice in the Arctic undergoes a subtle change in size we are told that it is catastrophic.  When the ice in the Antarctic sets a new record, we are told it is a subtle change. Mama warned me about people like Seth.
How does something (expansion of ice coverage in Antarctica) that obviously contradicts the very core of a ridiculous theory (earth is getting warmer) actually end up supporting the theory?  Seth tells us, "shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year--both related to human activity--are probably behind the increase in ice."  So let me get this straight.  The amount of ice is increasing and the more that fact is "studied" the more obvious it becomes that it is humankind that is responsible for the increase?  And, despite the fact that the actions of mankind are supposed to be causing the earth to become warmer, the amount of ice is growing?  It sure seems to me that the actual facts are getting in the way of a good story and we all know that should never happen.  So, let's just repeat the phrase that evil human beings (read "profit seeking businesses") are responsible for every change that takes place in the climate of the world.  Since we all readily agree that change is bad, and since we all readily admit that government has the power to permanently prevent change, we need more government laws to stop this horrendous evil.
Did you notice the subtle reference to the ozone hole?  I seem to remember that it was not too many years ago the greenies were telling me that the ozone hole was expanding at an alarming rate.  I further remember being told that I was personally responsible for this expansion due to my excessive use of hair spray.  If government laws were not immediately enacted we were all doomed as the hole would only get bigger and bigger.  So the government stepped up and banned hair spray.  Next thing you know my hair is uncontrollable and Seth's "giant" (nothing subtle about that word) ozone hole is actually contracting.  That contraction must have been directly related to the government law.  Wow, who would have thought government could so easily control the environment?  Now, however, the smaller ozone hole is responsible for more ice forming.  And more ice forming is an example of the negative impact of man upon our environment.  If I understand the greenies correctly, and that is very hard to do, the contraction of the ozone hole is now a bad thing.  And we caused that to happen also.  Amazing!  It apparently never occurs to anybody who is in search of a government job that the periodic expansion and contraction of the Antarctic ozone hole could be a natural phenomenon. 
I was amused when one greenie scientist was asked about the growth of ice in the Antarctic.  He said, "A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences."    That's it?  That is his best response?  His response to evidence that directly contradicts his theory is that the evidence does not really contradict his theory?  Does he really expect us to believe that an increase in ice coverage is simply a "surprising consequence" of a "warming world"?  How could that possibly happen?  How does this pass as good science?  It certainly does not pass the truth test taught to me by my mama.
I have a proposal for the greeenies.  How about we standardize our terminology?  Rather than talking about "global warming" let's talk about how "some parts of the earth at any particular time are more warm than historic averages and other parts of the earth at any particular time are more cold than historic averages."  Clearly warming is not global.  If it was we would not have 7 million square miles of ice in Antarctica.   More ice does not form when temperatures are going up.  The greenies shout to high heaven about how the Arctic proves their theory and they utterly ignore the even larger Antarctic.  Let's admit we live in a world with localized warming and localized cooling, shall we?  Better still, let's get off our high horse and admit that humans have very little impact upon anything that happens in the natural world.  I know I can live without the guilt.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Mommy, Where Does Money Come From?

I was sitting in my rocking chair last night pondering how the Colorado Rockies could go from being a competitor in the World Series to the second worst team in baseball in five short years.  The more I thought about it the more confused I became.  I have no idea what went wrong.  I wish I could sit down with Jim Tracy (former manager of the Rockies who quit last week) for a candid interview.  I bet he could enlighten me on what happened.
While I was pondering the Rockies a commercial came on the television.  It had a woman looking at the camera who was very sad.  Behind her was a photograph of a man who was also looking at the camera but with a silly grin on his face.  It caught my attention so I turned off the "mute" button to see what she had to say.  As it turned out this woman professed to be a victim a vicious deed undertaken by the man in the photograph behind her.  The man was a career politician and he had voted to "cut funding" for the battered woman's shelter she lived in.  As a result, she was going to either live in the street or return home to a life of broken bones and bruises.  She could not believe that any morally responsible person would take her money away.
As I sat there my pondering shifted from the Rockies to the concept of funding cuts.  I replayed many of the television commercials I have seen this election season in which some person, always looking very sad and usually a woman, tells me that some evil politician has cut funding to her program and, as a result, her life is now a disaster.  One woman told me she could no longer get the methadone she required to fight her heroin addiction.  Another told me that an evil politician figuratively wanted to put his hands all over her body by not not wanting to pay for her abortion.  Another told me that if a particularly evil man was elected to rule over us she would not be able to prevent becoming pregnant because she would have no access to birth control (abstinence obviously not being considered a means of birth control).  Others complained that funding cuts would result in a loss of free lunches for their kids at school.  Still others were desperately pleading with me to not turn their kids out into the streets.  They saw packs of illiterate children roaming the city streets as the inevitable result of school budget cuts.  All of these commercials, and many more, made me wonder......does anybody in this socialistic country know where money really comes from?
I know that sounds like a ridiculous question.  Those of us who do not live in the world of politics know exactly where money comes from.  We earn it by serving others.  We get paid by others when we produce goods and services that they want to purchase.  Every single one of us who has ever earned a paycheck realizes this fundamental truth.  We must serve others in order to earn money.  Yet somehow when we turn to discussions of a political nature this simple truth goes flying out the window.  Somehow we believe that government has a reservoir of money that we are all in competition for.  We never ask where that government money came from or how it got there.  We just know that our neighbors want a piece of it and we had better hurry to get there before it is all gone.  As civilized people we have decided to use elections to determine who gets the money and who does not.  When my guy wins, I win and you lose.  Majority rules and to the victor goes the spoils. 
As a very young man I prepared diligently to vote for the very first time.  I have mentioned in a previous post how I accidentally pulled the lever to vote for the Democratic ticket even though I was registered as a Republican.  After I had done so I was asked by a friend who I had voted for in the Senate race.  My response was that I had voted for the Democratic candidate.  When asked why I voted for that person I responded that it seemed like a good idea because so-and-so had "brought a lot of federal money to our state."  That was a sufficiently good answer for my interrogator and I sounded pretty smart saying it, or at least I thought I did.
If you had asked me where government money came from at that time I would not have had an answer for you.  I would have been like the now infamous lady who, after the appointment of Obama to the presidency, exclaimed that she would no longer have to pay her rent because Obama was going to pay it for her.  I shared the same view as that woman.  We both believed that government has an enormous reservoir of money to be dolled out to those who deserve it.  What fool I was.   I wonder, if we asked every one of the adult citizens in the United States (several hundred million of us) where government money comes from, how many do you think would know the correct answer? 
Doug Casey tells the hilarious story of when he was interviewed by Phil Donahue in 1980.   He was facing an increasingly hostile audience as his answers to Donahue's questions were not consistent with the socialism of the audience.  After pointing out how much the members of the audience were paying in taxes one member of the audience shouted, "Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes?  Why doesn't the government pay for it?"  Those two questions were followed by vigorous clapping signifying their mass approval of his point.  Quite clearly nobody in that audience had a clue about where government money comes from.
Using numbers that are rounded off, the federal government budget for 2012 includes revenues of $2.5 trillion.  Roughly half of that comes from the federal income tax.  As a result of our democratic system only a minority of the citizens in this country pay the income tax. Another 35% of the revenue comes from Social Security taxes which are paid by everyone who draws a paycheck.  The rest is made up of corporate taxes and a smattering of other taxes that probably should not exist.  2012 federal expenditures are slated to be $3.8 trillion, leaving a budget shortfall of $1.3 trillion.  That shortfall is covered by selling federal debt or Treasury securities.  So, to answer the original question, where does government money come from?  It is quite obvious by now that it does not just simply exist in a giant reservoir at the federal government.  It should be quite obvious that government money must first be taken from others before it can be given to those who believe they are entitled to have "funding".  To put it on a personal level, we must first rob Peter to pay Paul.  Or, even more personally,  you must first rob me to fund yourself.
The ladies in these television commercials believe that they are being treated immorally.  They profess to be victims of an immoral action when their funding is cut off.  They do this, I suspect, because they have no idea where government money comes from.  I believe most folks are as dumb as I used to be.  I believe most folks think that government just has money and that it really does not come from anywhere.  That is a very dangerous belief.  If it is true that cutting off funding to a battered woman's shelter is an immoral act, then it necessarily follows that the women in that shelter have a moral claim upon the money of the taxpayers who funded it.  More personally, if that woman in the commercial really believes she has a moral claim on my money,  I, as a taxpayer,  have sinned against her when her funding was cut off.  Either I have sinned by cutting off funds she has a moral claim to or she has sinned by demanding funds she has no claim to.  One or the other must be true.  Somebody is sinning and needs to repent.  Somebody is sinning and will be judged for their sin. 
Roughly a third of all the money dolled out by the federal government is borrowed from other people.  Folks like to make a big deal about how the government of China has purchased a lot of our debt.  They are afraid that somehow gives China an advantage over us in our common goal of world domination.  I have never understood that position because it seems to me that China is taking all of the risks here.  All the Treasury has to do is default on the payments.  End of discussion.
Still, I just can't figure out why anybody in his right mind would ever loan money to the federal government.  How is the government going to pay the interest on your loan?  We have already seen that there is no magical source of money at the Treasury.  There is no money tree in Washington.  The only way the Treasury can pay the interest on your government bond is by first taxing you.  In the end you pay your own interest.  That does not sound like a prudent investment policy to me.
I am glad I finally grew up.  Now I know where money comes from.  I realize that everything the government gives to one person must first be forcibly taken from another person.  Rather than focusing my thoughts and prayers upon the sad looking person who is receiving the government funding I think it makes more sense to focus my thoughts and prayers upon those hard working people who are having their money forcibly taken from them.  They are the ones who should be portrayed on television commercials.  They are the real victims.  They are the ones who need our support.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Politicians And Original Sin

There was a time in this country, long ago, when most citizens were conversant about basic concepts of theology.  One of the doctrines that most people were well acquainted with was the doctrine of original sin.  I suspect most people today would believe that original sin is the name of some musical group and not one of the most important of Christian doctrines.  Almost nobody understands the basic definition of original sin.  Original sin simply states that all human beings are born with a sinful nature.  It does not follow that all human beings are as bad as they can be.  It does follow that all human beings are bad.  In fact, original sin asserts that no human action can escape the stain of moral corruption.
As you would expect, almost nobody believes this doctrine today.  This is especially true when individuals examine themselves.  Still, almost everyone has a doctrine in regards to the innate goodness or evil of mankind.  We hear statements all the time like "that hurricane reaffirmed my belief in the innate goodness of men", or "this tornado just goes to show how we all pull together to help one another in a disaster."  Conversely, we also hear statements all the time such as "I think we are all getting nastier with each other every day", or " why can't we all just get along?"  It seems as if most people create their doctrine of man by looking around their immediate circumstances and concluding that men are either basically good or basically evil depending upon what just immediately happened to them.  That approach does not really tell us much.
As I have observed the practical theology evidenced in the behavior of  human beings I have had contact with over the years it seems to me that some general truths can be derived from what we say about the relative goodness or badness of our fellow men.  In particular, I believe most people deny the doctrine of original sin.  I also believe most people deny the doctrine of original righteousness.  I believe that most people think some people are good and some people are bad.  There are, however, some categorical exceptions to this general doctrine.  Specifically, almost all the people I am aware of hold politicians to be free of original sin and, at the same time, hold businessmen to be overwhelmed by original sin.  Simply put, in the minds of most people politicians are always good and businessmen are always evil.
I was listening to a preacher on a local Christian radio station this weekend.  This man is a preacher at a mega-church in the Denver metro area.  He was preaching on the commandment about not stealing from our neighbor.  In the course of his sermon he gave several examples of what it means to break the commandment to not steal.   His very first example of the immoral act of stealing pertained to banks and bankers.  Why was I not surprised?  According to this preacher, banks issue credit cards to customers to "get them hooked on debt so they can raise the interest rate on their cards to 20 or 25 percent."  According to this preacher, the issuance of credit cards to customers who voluntarily enter into a contract with the bank to use them is an example of stealing on the part of the banks.  As I listened to this man preach I wondered if there were any bank employees who work with credit card debt in his congregation.  It is a large congregation and entirely possible that there could be many such folks.  I further wondered if he would bring church discipline upon them for their act of thievery.  I suspected not.
The preacher then went on to describe his second example of theft.  According to this man the government has the right to tax us.  So far, so good.  Also according to this man, the government has the right to tax us as much as it wants.  In fact, the preacher informed me that government can take as much of my money as it wants, anytime it wants it.  If I object to having half of my income taken from me by the government and take measures that are not legal (but are moral) to safeguard some of my income from government theft I am guilty of breaking the commandment to not steal. The obvious presupposition the preacher was operating under is one that is shared by almost every citizen in the Socialist Democracy of America.  We all believe that government officials (politicians) do no wrong.  If a man accosts us on the street with a gun and takes half of the money in our wallet, that is an act of armed robbery.  If a career politician makes a law that orders us to turn half of our money over to the Treasury, that is an act of high morality for which he should be praised.  If we resist the robber we are heroes.  If we resist the career politicians we are criminals.
Granting original righteousness to career politicians is not consistently practiced.  Most politically active people only grant original righteousness to the career politicians they vote for.  Career politicians in the other political party are worse than Hitler.  Describing the politicians in the other party as being guilty of original sin is not strong enough.  Still, all politically active people seem to come to the schizophrenic conclusion that ordinary men become gods the moment they become politicians.  At the same time, these same people come to the conclusion that ordinary men become devils the moment they go into profit seeking businesses.
Let me set the record straight.  All men are guilty of original sin.  This is true for men in politics and men in business.  All men are also guilty of actual sin.  This is true for men in politics and men in business.  However, and this is an extremely important point, the political process and the process associated with profit seeking businesses each creates an extremely different incentive in regards to moral or sinful behavior.  Allow me to explain.
A businessman will not stay in business for very long if he steals from his suppliers.  He will not realize many profits if he lies to his customers.  He will soon be out of business if he produces shoddy goods that are broken shortly after the sale.  He will shoot himself in the foot if he treats his customers with disdain.  In short, a businessman has tremendous incentives to treat people with decency, kindness and respect.  No businessman will be profitable in the long term if he consistently behaves immorally.  This is a social and economic truth that cannot be changed.  Engaging in the activity of profit seeking business creates enormous incentives for moral behavior.
Political action, on the other hand, is the exact opposite.  Politicians get elected by making promises to people they hope will vote for them.  The promises they make always come with a price.  For example, no career politician ever promises to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and stop all wealth transfer programs operated by the government.  That person would never be elected.  Politicians who wish to get elected promise to maintain social security and medicare.  They promise to maintain and expand government give-aways to special interest groups.  Indeed, each special interest group that exists is identified and studied so that  a particular promise to give money to that group can be crafted by the politician to ensure he receives the votes from that group.  No politician that I have heard has ever talked about how he intends to pay for these promises.  No politician I have ever been aware of has had the moral integrity to confess that all of these promises will be paid for with money first taken from another group that will not vote for him.  In other words, no politician I am aware of has ever confessed to pandering to envy and advocating theft by majority vote.  We must realize that the entire political process is designed in such a way that the most immoral men and women get to the top.  Those who are best at lying and stealing rise to the top.  All political incentives are in the direction of immoral behavior.
Politicians are not exempt from original sin.  Neither are businessmen.  Businessmen can counteract the forces of original sin by participating in the marketplace and subjecting themselves to the demands of consumers.  On the other hand, politicians can strengthen the forces of original sin in their lives by participating in the political process and committing themselves to pandering to envy and theft.  Mothers, don't let your children grow up to be politicians.

Monday, October 8, 2012

TheTruth About The Issues

Both Obama and Romney are running television commercials 24/7 that are filled with misleading information.  In most cases they obsess upon one data point and ignore the big picture.  In all cases they construct their advertisements in order to make themselves appear to be the saviors of humanity while casting their opponent as Hitler's step-child.  The press conference/photo opportunity (called a "debate" by those who do not know what a debate is) provided additional opportunities for each candidate for King of the Socialist Democracy of America to misrepresent the truth on domestic issues.  Today's post is dedicated to giving you the truth on the issues.
Taxes:  Both candidates lie ceaselessly when it comes to the issue of taxes.  Each candidate attempts to present the other as one who would ruthlessly exploit the tax code to either enrich billionaires and destroy the middle class or make billionaires pay their "fair share" (never defined, of course) and destroy the middle class. The one thing both candidates agree upon is that each believes the other wants to destroy the middle class with punitive tax policies. 
The economic nature of taxation is simple to understand, even for stupid politicians.  Either Obama and Romney do not understand the economic nature of taxation, and are stupid, or they do understand the economic nature of taxation and chose to ignore it, thereby declaring themselves to be hypocrites.  Either way, neither is worthy of the office of King of the SDA.
Taxes hinder economic growth.  This is true for all taxes at all times.  This is true for all types of taxes.  There is no such thing as a good tax when economic growth is the goal.  Taxes also increase the amount of government intervention in the economy.  Government intervention in the economy always hinders economic growth.  This is true for all government intervention at all times.  There is no such thing as good government intervention when economic growth is concerned.  The greater the tax, the more the hindrance to economic growth. If the candidates really want to promote economic growth they should reduce taxes.  It does not matter which income cohort has its tax burden reduced as long as the tax burden is reduced.  Ideally all income cohorts would have their tax burdens reduced. Ideally all citizens would find themselves paying no more than 10% of their income to all branches of government.  The ideal, of course, will never appear.
The idea that lowering taxes will hinder economic growth because reduced government revenues will result in lower government spending which will then result in slower economic growth is idiotic.  If that ridiculous idea had any merit it would necessarily follow that government could tax away all of our income, spend all of it on government programs, and we would all become wealthy beyond our wildest dreams.  Does anybody believe that?  Government spending does not create more economic growth than the free market.  It is always true that whatever growth might be created by government spending, it will be lower than what would have been created by the free market if the money had not been taken by the government in the first place.
Finally, raising taxes is not the way to reduce government debt.  First and foremost, government debt should be reduced by actually cutting government spending.  Neither candidate has any intention of reducing total  government spending.  Both candidates are astute enough to realize that promising to cut spending would be political suicide.  In fact, both candidates count on buying votes from selfish and greedy voters by promising to spend more money on government programs for them.  If government spending is not going to be cut then the only other way to reduce the government debt is to have the economy grow faster than the rate of growth in government debt.  In order to free the economy to grow the government must cut taxes, not raise them.  These are all indisputable economic facts.
Employment:  Both candidates talk about how their programs will create jobs.  Therefore both candidates are either idiots or liars.  No politician, including the god-like King of the SDA, has the power to create jobs.   All jobs are created exclusively by businessmen operating in the free market.  This is an iron-clad truth that cannot be changed by any politician or executive order.  The only thing a politician can do to to create jobs is to create a political and legal environment in which the government hindrances to job creation are reduced.  Neither candidate has promised to do that.  That would, in effect, be campaigning on a promise to "do nothing".  Campaigning to "do nothing", although very good for the economic health of the country, does not buy votes from envious voters and would never result in victory for a candidate.  It therefore necessarily follows that no candidate will ever do it.  It also follows that, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, no candidate will ever do anything that is economically good for the country. 
Both Obama and Romney want a trade war with China.  I have posted on this topic in the recent past.  Either Obama and Romney are too stupid to realize that trade wars reduce overall employment levels or they are aware of that economic law and choose to ignore it.  That means they are either stupid or hypocrites.  In either case they are not fit to be King.  Creating tariffs and devaluing currencies does not create jobs.  For every job that is allegedly "saved",  two are destroyed.  Talking tough about China may be good for the testosterone of the candidates but it is not good for the economic health of the country.  It is an economic law, as true as the law of gravity, that free trade with all nations is the quickest and most effective means to high levels of economic growth.  However, free trade with all nations, despite being one of the principles this country was originally founded upon, is not popular with the majority of the voters.  Since America is a democracy where the majority always wins, even when they are dreadfully wrong, I have no expectation that free trade will come out of Washington and I have no expectation that total employment will expand as a result of that free trade.
Both candidates are making plenty of hay over the official government statistic for unemployment.  After a drop from 8.1% to 7.8% this past week Obama is crowing that his policies are clearly working and more time is needed for them to bring forth more fruit.  Romney's camp is countering with the argument that the official government statistic does not represent economic reality.  According to Romney the real rate of unemployment is much higher.  Both candidates ignore crucial economic truths.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of free market jobs has increased by 4.3%, an increase of 4.56 million jobs, since January 2010.  Conversely, the number of government jobs has decreased by 2.6%, a decrease of 579,000 jobs,  for the same time period.  The net change is an increase in the total number of jobs and a slight drop in the official rate of unemployment.  Most important about the statistic cited above is the fact that private sector jobs are increasing and government jobs are decreasing.  That is good news on both counts.  Unemployment is bad for the private sector but good for government jobs.  Employment is good for the free market and bad for the government.  More government jobs means expansive government.  Expansive government means slower economic growth.  The private sector is growing and the government sector is contracting.  That is good for the economy.  Neither candidate will tell you this because they are dedicated to pandering to the electorate, but it is true nevertheless.
Spending:  Both candidates for King are committed to increasing the size and spending of the federal government.  Both candidates for King believe that government is more fit than the free market to allocate scarce capital resources.  Both candidates are committed to statism and the expansion of state power and authority over your life.  Both candidates use spending as a means to buy your vote and increase their control over your life.  Both candidates show themselves to be stupid liars when they promise to increase government spending and bring about economic growth.  Both candidates ignore the vital moral issues regarding coercive government redistribution of wealth.  Indeed, both candidates are in agreement that one of the primary functions of government is to take from one group (tax) and give to another (spend).  The only points of disagreement between the two candidates for King are who to steal from and who to give the blood money to.  That is the truth about the issues.