No Longer Self-Evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government......

--The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

July 4, 1776

  

It wasn't that long ago that the truths mentioned by our founding fathers were self-evident.  They weren't up for debate.  We knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The  government worked for us, not vice versa.  Somewhere along the way we lost sight of these truths.  We have allowed the government to grant us our rights.  The problem with the government granting rights?  The government can also rescind the same rights.  The government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed (us).  The government   creates power for itself, if not through legislation, through regulation.  And we, the people, are allowing it and in many cases, even encouraging it.  

If our form of government is destructive to the people's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), and it is our right to alter or abolish that government, how we do we achieve that alteration or abolition?  That is where the first two amendments to our Constitution come into play.  

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Without the right to peaceably assemble, speak freely, and petition the  government; and the right of the people to bear arms,  it would be impossible to secure a free state or ensure the other rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Without free speech or an armed populace, how can the people control the government as it grants itself more and more power?  We can't.  When we lose the rights guaranteed in the first two amendments, all other rights are granted at the whim of the government.  I don't think anyone, right, left, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian are prepared for that eventuality.  Yet that's where we are heading at a breakneck speed now.  

When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

--Edward Abbey

Trust Each Other, Unless You Live in D.C.

I have worked for many, sometimes it feels like too many, years in management.  My first management job was in a small bookstore.  It was basically me and one part time associate.  Obviously there was not much delegating.  If something needed to get done, I did it.  My next management position was with Stride Rite shoes.  With Stride Rite, I had several part time associates and an assistant.  While with Stride Rite, I learned a lesson that our government needs to learn.

Part of my job as manager was to train my assistant to be a future manager.  Tisha was one of my first assistants who was serious about getting her own store.  After some basic training, we split the daily tasks and paperwork.  Once on Tisha's day off, I had finished all my usual activities and had probably listened to the Dino Dave recordings a couple of times too many for the day.  I went back to the office and noticed that Tisha had a couple of days' paperwork still unfinished.  So I decided to do her a favor and finish it for her.

I was off the next day, but got a phone call from the store.  It was Tisha, and she was irate.  She asked if she should start looking for a new job, or maybe a transfer to another store.  I had no idea what could possibly be the problem.  I thought everything was going well.  Finally she calmed down enough to ask me if I thought she was incapable of doing her job.  I told her, no. I thought she was doing well and would be able to take her own store soon.  She then asked why I would do her job if that was the way I really felt.  She was insulted at my doing her job for her.  From my point of view, I was doing her a favor.  It seemed a case of "no good deed will go unpunished."  From her point of view, her manager did not trust her or did not think she was capable of doing her job.

Tisha went on to get her own store with Stride Rite and did very well.  She eventually moved on to another management position with another company with even more responsibility.  She taught me a lesson that I think about each time I "help" a trainee.  I always tell them this story and let them know the reason I'm "helping" them.  The story is used as a motivator for those who may not be as self-motivated or as capable as Tisha, in addition to teaching them a management lesson that I learned the hard way.

Unfortunately, I have had trainees that did not have the drive or capability of Tisha.  In their case, I "helped" them a great deal. Until they either caught on or moved on.  As a rule, the more "help" they required, the more likely they were to move on.  

I don't know if the good folks in D.C. think we are capable of taking care of ourselves.  The majority of Americans will gladly take care of themselves and do the right thing.  All we ask is that the government get out of our way.  We are more than willing to help each other and contribute to causes in which we believe.  As long as the government leaves us the resources to do so. I believe most of our representatives think they are doing the right thing.  They feel a little like I did during the phone call from Tisha, "no good deed will go unpunished!"

More and more, I have come to believe that our government doesn't want to trust us.  They take our tax dollars and spend them for us on causes the majority of us do not believe in or support, in order to further their own agenda or strengthen their positions.  No non-profit should receive federal funds.  That's no, none, not any, for any reason.  Nowhere in the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to collect money from the general population to give to any non-profit organization.  Leave that money in the hands of the individual who earned it.  Let that person decide where his/her contribution will go.  Let the non-profit organizations compete for our dollars.  Then let's see if ACORN gives tax advice to pimps for Salvadoran teens, or registers the lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas(you knew I had to work the Cowboys in here somewhere).  Or if Planned Parenthood takes 15 year old girls from their school in Washington and gets them a free abortion without notifying their parents.  If they do, and you choose to support them with your hard-earned dollars, that's your choice.  In that case, I am pro-choice, as are most Americans.  But do not force us to contribute.  We will gladly contribute to causes we believe in.

We need to learn which representatives want to control us, and which just need a phone call from Tisha.  Soon, while we still have any choices left.   

Dumping Money On the Ground

When I worked for Avis, we were required to take a class on responding to fuel spills.  The district manager said that since I had worked in and been around the oilfield when I was younger, I probably didn't need to take the class.  I told him that unless the proper response to a spill was to throw some dirt on it, I'd better take the class.

When I visited my grandparents for the summer when I was about 7, I went to work with my Grandpa Tom in the oilfield.  When the tanks are full, he would have to hire a truck to come out and haul all the oil to his buyer.  Since the cost of having the truck come out is the same no matter how much oil they haul, you would of course want to have as much oil as possible be taken in a trip.  A tank could be full, but still have a lot of saltwater in with the oil.  Oil sits on top of the saltwater (think oil spill in the Gulf, the oil stays on top). So, there was a valve on the bottom of the tank.  Grandpa would open this valve and let the saltwater spray out onto the ground.  It was my job to sit beside this spraying valve and watch for the saltwater to turn into oil.  Grandpa would go do his maintenance on the pumpjack or whatever else he needed to do.  I didn't want to let any oil spray out, that would be just like throwing away money.  So I sat staring at the brownish saltwater spraying, waiting it for it to change from coffee with cream color to coffee with no cream color.  When oil started spraying out, I would yell for Grandpa and he would close the valve to let the well produce for a couple of more days to maximize the truck's load of oil.  It was a great practice economically, but probably not so great environmentally.  Oily saltwater leaves an ugly mess on the ground.  

I think even the most environmentally insensitive oilman sees this as a bad practice today.  So, to a degree regulations were needed.  But, as is usually the case with government involvement, they went too far the other direction.  And if the federal government is involved, they will go waaaaaaaaaaaay too far.  And then go further.  And take a minute's break and go a little further.  Eventually they go so far that the producers do not make enough money to stay in business.  The Democrat/Progressive side seems to forget that the reason oil companies exist is to make a profit.  And in most cases, they will do it the right way, both for their profit margin and for the environment.  

Eighteen governors, two of them Democrats, have asked Congress to clamp down on the EPA.  They say that the EPA doesn't take the economic impact of their rulings into consideration when they impose new restrictions.  They have reached the point in some cases, where it is no longer profitable to stay in business.  As I mentioned in yesterday's post about the Grand Junction area, trickle down works in both directions.  When business is booming for the oil company, it is booming for the construction industry, the fast food industry, grocery stores, retailers, and yes, the government through sales, income, and property taxes.  Ever notice all the new schools, libraries, and jails get built during the boom years?  Then the EPA steps in with new regulations, and end the boom.  For everyone.  Including the government.  

I don't know if the current Congress has the spine, or even the inclination to stand up to the President and his anti-business policies.  But it is nice to see that the states are starting to push back.  Over the past 100 plus years, the states have let the federal government take too many of the powers the Constitution relegated to the states.  It will be very hard to get those powers back.  But it sure is good to see the process start.  Not only in the case of the EPA, but Utah has filed suit to prevent the federal government from taking more land and to try to take back the area that President Clinton took by executive action in his last days in office (southern Utah, rich with uranium, imagine that).  Montana, Texas, and others have filed or threatened to file suit over federal gun control laws.  Texas, Virginia, and others have started the process of challenging federal takeover of healthcare.  And with the recent verbal jabs by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the president, I think the Supreme Court is signaling that it is ready to reign in some of the federal power grabs.  

Maybe the Supreme Court is that seven year old watching money spray out onto the ground.  It's time to shut off the valve.