To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.3
In this passage and in many of his other writings, Franklin makes it clear that kindness and charity are admirable traits, but that it is actually destructive to continually support the needs and habits of those who are lazy and irresponsible. By doing so, we only encourage the proliferation of these undesirable traits and the numbers of people who have to be supported. Samuel Adams went right to the heart of the matter when he said, “The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution), and a community of goods (the government owns everything), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown.”4 These ideas he even called unconstitutional.
I believe we are in the process right now of learning that our government is far too big — and the bigger it gets, the more taxpayer money it needs to sustain itself. A gigantic, bloated government has to keep itself busy in order to justify its existence; hence, you have more regulations and meddling in the affairs of the people, whether they request it, need it, or not. Our government is now so large and expensive that each year our national debt grows larger. Currently it sits between $14 and $15 trillion — a number that is so large that it is virtually incomprehensible. That comes out to $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
It was obviously a mistake to allow our government to reach this size and to spend as much as it has, but it is not the fault of one party or the other. Rather, it is the natural tendency of government to expand if there is no conscientious effort to keep it under control. The Constitution of the United States was written in such a way as to restrain government growth and power if there was the will to adhere to it, but unfortunately many of our legislators feel that the Constitution is outdated and largely irrelevant to today’s society. They feel that we have advanced far beyond the understanding of the founding fathers and that through appropriate government, we can create a better life for everyone. They may be right, but I doubt it. The reason I’m skeptical that we need a new government is that the old government worked so well. Our early, limited government provided an atmosphere that encouraged productivity and innovation, resulting in the most rapid expansion of a powerful middle class that the world had ever seen. It resulted in enormous economic and industrial power as well as an extremely educated populace. If you have something that works, why change it?
Is there a logical solution for controlling the size of our government and the resulting size of our national deficit? Currently the debate is raging in Washington between the Republicans, who have been largely co-opted by the Tea Party, and the Democrats, who are finding it very difficult to break out of their tax-and-spend mode. The Democrats accuse Republicans of draconian budget cuts that would take food out of the mouths of babies and shelter from the elderly. At the same time, the Republicans accuse the Democrats of having no concern for our future generations and no understanding of the concept of budgetary constraints. Who is right and who is wrong in this exaggerated tug-of-war is not nearly as important as how to solve the problem. The problem is our mistake of permitting a bloated government bureaucracy that requires unimaginable amounts of money to sustain itself. And our problem is magnified by numerous special interest groups advocating to protect their pet programs from a reduction in government spending.
As a nation, we have become so accustomed to ever-rising taxes that the fact that the government takes up to half of all one’s income does not really faze many people anymore. Our government would do well to remember that one of the major reasons for the Revolutionary War was excessive taxation. I will admit to making a very good living, and I am grateful to live in this country and to have been afforded the opportunity to obtain a first-rate education and pursue the career of my choosing. However, my biggest expense by far is taxes. Between federal, state, local, sales, and real estate taxes, more than half of my income goes to pay taxes. Since that is the case, you might say that I work for the government. This is certainly not the kind of situation that was envisioned by the founding fathers.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
It is clear from the writings of our founding fathers that they disagreed with such excessive taxation to redistribute wealth. In the Annals of Congress (House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1794), President James Madison is documented as saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
We all want to be benevolent, of course, but as President Madison pointed out, there is nothing in the Constitution that entitles the government to use the money of their constituents for charitable purposes, no matter how noble their goals. His quote should be read every day to members of our current Congress, particularly to those who complain about restraining the sacred entitlements to which our population has become addicted. Again our goals should be to reinstill a sense of independence and self-reliance in all of our citizens while continuing to cultivate caring and compassion for our neighbors who cannot take care of themselves.
Thomas Jefferson, an incredible visionary, made it clear that the accumulation of huge debt by the government is not only unacceptable, but dangerous to the preservation of our nation. “I place economy among the first and most important virtues,” he said, “and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”5 It almost seems as if he had the ability to look into the future and recognize the natural consequences of ever-growing and unrestrained government. “The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations,” he added, “under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”6 Many voices today decry the accumulation of debt we’re passing on to the next generation, but their protests are falling on many deaf ears among our leaders in government. But it is this statement of his that is especially alarming given the stated goals of the current administration to redistribute wealth: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”7 I hope this quote shakes you to the core, as it does me, and that you will realize how far we have strayed from the ideas of those who founded our nation and set it on a course of unparalleled success.
Jefferson was not alone in his views, and even some of his political foes embraced the ideas that are paramount to protecting our liberties and the prosperity of our nation. James Madison said, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare…. the powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”8 John Adams even appealed the matter to higher spiritual realities when he said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”9
Would applying logic help in solving this problem of taxation? Certainly there have been many different schemes devised by mankind throughout history to impose and collect taxes. There is, however, only one tax imposed by God and that is the tithe, which is one-tenth of your salary. Interestingly, God did not say if you have a bumper crop that you should give triple tithes, nor did he say if your crops fail, you are entitled to a reduction in tithes or need to pay no tithes at all. This means that there is fairness in proportionality; if you make $10 billion a year, your tax or tithe would be $1 billion, whereas if your income is $
10 a year, you would pay $1. Some would say that the billionaire is not hurt by his $1 billion contribution as much as the poor man who had to give up a dollar. They would say that the pain is not proportional and that the government has the right to decide how much more the rich man should pay. But where in God’s law does it say that the rich man needs to give until it hurts? He just put $1 billion into the common pot, so why do we need to hurt him? It is this kind of thinking that has led to the proliferation of offshore bank accounts. If we had a proportional tax system, there would be no significant incentive for people to hide their money and they could spend more time concentrating on production, which in the long run would lead to even more money for the government. What about creating an atmosphere that encourages businesses to not hide their money, but to invest it back into the company to expand it and provide more jobs?
Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. The only country with a higher corporate tax rate is Japan, which just so happens to also be the only country with a greater national debt than we have. Is that coincidence or evidence of cause and effect? I suspect the latter. By being shortsighted and greedy, our government is driving businesses to other countries, which deprives our people not only of jobs, but our government of vital income. If a low proportional tax rate is applied to everyone, including corporate entities, the flow of jobs and income would be into our nation rather than out of our nation. This is not complex economic theory, but rather common sense.
SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY
In my many years as an academic physician, I have had the opportunity to hear many lectures by intellectuals from all over the world. Invariably, the best talks are not the ones that use complex terms and theories to demonstrate how brilliant the presenter is. Rather, the very best, most profound lectures are the ones that can easily be understood — even by those who are not experts in the field. I find that one has to have a very deep understanding of their subject matter in order to be able to break it down into commonsense language that anyone can comprehend and appreciate. The same is true of economists and politicians. Those with logical plans and straightforward common sense are easily understood. Meanwhile those who have no idea what they’re talking about frequently make things far more complex than they need to be, and tell the people that they would understand it if only they were more knowledgeable and sophisticated.
Our founders knew that a slick politician can easily pull the wool over the eyes of an ignorant population, so they emphasized the importance of a broad, general education among the populace in order to maintain our freedom. I also believe, however, that legitimate political leaders have an obligation to explain their positions in a way that the common people can easily understand. As a neurosurgeon, I too have an obligation to explain the rationale for a complex operation that I propose in a way that allows the patient to make an intelligent decision. Any surgeon who cannot do that should not be operating, and the same is true of those running for political office.
Undoubtedly some critics will try to discredit me by saying, “He is a brilliant surgeon, but he knows nothing about politics, law, and economics, and should confine his opinions to medicine.” As I already mentioned, however, five physicians signed the Declaration of Independence and several were signatories for the Constitution of the United States of America. In addition, physicians are the most highly educated group in the nation, trained to make decisions based on facts rather than emotion. They tend to be excellent with numbers, very concerned about the welfare of others, and accustomed to hard work. I speak at many medical school commencements and always encourage physicians to get involved in community affairs and in politics. In fact, I would love to see scientists and engineers get much more involved in the political process, bringing their no-nonsense common sense and logic to the table.
I am certainly not saying that people who are not physicians and scientists lack logical thinking skills — and it’s sad that I even have to make such a disclaimer, but in our social milieu today, people who do not have very good arguments themselves tend to dissect every word of someone with whom they disagree in an attempt to make themselves look smart while discrediting someone else. Such tactics can be quite effective on people who do not think for themselves. This is another reason why our founding fathers placed so much emphasis on education for the common people — particularly on establishing values and understanding civics. They envisioned a government that was constantly changing its members, because by avoiding entrenchment you disempower special interest groups and ensure fresh ideas. Since working for the government as a senator, representative, or staff person back then was not lucrative and required personal sacrifice, they never suspected that the system of government they put in place would be distorted by career politicians.
WHAT VALUES WILL HELP GUIDE US AWAY
FROM FUTURE MISTAKES?
When our nation was rising rapidly to the pinnacle of the world, we were not ashamed of our relationship with God. In fact, reading from the Bible was not only common, it was expected in early public schools. The founders wanted generally accepted religious values to be taught in our schools without favoring any particular denomination, but they never intended to exclude God from the classroom,10 because they knew that you had to have something upon which to base your system of values. If we only believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, whose values do we use to govern society?
Our society has become so paranoid about being politically incorrect that many people are afraid to say “Merry Christmas” simply because it contains the word Christ. Rather than spending so much time trying to figure out how not to offend people, it would be wonderful if we expended energy on teaching people not to be offended when someone offers a different opinion. Our emphasis should not be on unanimity of speech and thought, but rather on learning to be respectful and courteous to those with different opinions. I am fond of saying that if two people think and say the same thing about everything, then one of them is not necessary. Also, if people can’t hold honest conversations and are afraid to express their true feelings, conversations will necessarily be artificial, and it will be very difficult to have a meaningful discourse and solve problems.
It is my hope and prayer that we will vigorously protect the rights of individuals and communities to live and believe as they please, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. I hope we continue to protect the rights of our citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not micromanaging their lives and imposing societal standards of political correctness that impinge upon their liberty. These principles have nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism, but rather are the foundation that paved the way for the creation of the most successful and productive society the world has ever seen. We have had the opportunity to witness what works, and we have seen historically many examples of political systems that do not work.11 Hopefully we will be wise enough to step back, take a deep breath, and critically analyze the triumphs and mistakes of our nation, and to use what we have learned to take another gigantic leap forward with liberty and justice for all.
— CHAPTER 9 —
AMERICA’S ROLE IN
A WORLD AT WAR
WHEN I WAS AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT AT YALE, the Vietnam War was still raging. Many students, frustrated by our nation’s involvement in that war, referred to members of the military — including the National Guard — as “pigs,” and anything having to do with our national defense as part of the “military-industrial complex.” Even local police were generally regarded as part of the oppressive “establishment.” This antigovernment attitude was so pervasive on the Yale campus that ROTC cadets were not required to wear their uniforms because officials feared they might be physically attacked.
The Vietnam War was, in retrospect, not a noble conflict. It brought shame to our nation because of both the outcome and the cause, and many people continue to bash the military and want to ban ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) from their colleg
e campuses. They believe the military is immoral and intellectually inferior. If they were a little more open-minded, however, they might realize that it takes tremendous intelligence and leadership to effectively command and control the massive global military infrastructure responsible for their freedom. Fortunately, we as a society have matured some since then, and even many of the far-left progressives commend the men and women of the military while condemning its actions. I speak at many college graduations and am proud to see the standing ovation that almost invariably occurs when graduates of the ROTC are recognized, something that never would have occurred three or four decades ago.
Except during the summer months, I am on a college campus almost on a weekly basis, and I greatly enjoy interacting with the bright young people who represent our future. Recently, I was thrilled to be invited to give a special lecture at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The facility was immaculate and the cadets’ demeanor was one of dignity, respect, and confidence. After interacting with several of them, I was very impressed with their knowledge and ability to express themselves. I subsequently discovered how rigorous the admissions process is, and I began to understand why so many of our military leaders are historically so intellectually accomplished. Seeing that sea of dress white uniforms was awe-inspiring, and the cadets were extremely attentive and receptive as I spoke. The pageantry I have witnessed over the years at Army, Navy, and Marine reviews is no façade, but reflects the pride and competence that characterizes our military.
America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great Page 15