Archive for the ‘Liberty – Blog of John Mulholland’ Category

If not now then when, if not us then who

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

The question was asked last night to one of the senate candidates if we were prepared as a people to pay higher taxes if we did not accept earmarks.

I commented after the candidate answered the question that if we stopped taking earmarks then we would have a major paradigm shift as a culture away from being dependent on the government for things. This would then cause people to take a lot more personal responsibility for themselves and then incredible things would start to happen. The burden of government would be greatly lessened in the state while at the same time federal control (which comes through these earmarks) would also lessen. This would drive free enterprise in the state and amazing things would happen.

But regardless of this or not. The bribery, for that is what it is, must end. Because if now is not to the time to end the bribery and corruption, when is? If we are not to be willing to say No More, then who will?

3 Simple Rules of Economics

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

While I was in high school I took AP Economics from a very capable teacher.  We went through many topics in order to understand the complexities of economics.  After thinking about it though economics are quite simple.   There are a few simple rules.

1. People want to control property.

2. People will do the easiest thing in their belief system to control their desired property.

3. People will complicate economics in order to cheat.

Let us look at some examples. is a great example where a senator found it easier to get a bailout for his bank rather than invest wisely or accept the loss and earn more money and it was in his belief system that it was OK to have the taxpayer bear the burden of his banks failure.

If we analyze many other situations we can see that this is the case.  Look at a lobbyist.  He wants to control property so the easiest way he sees is to influence/bribe a politician through things like campaign donations.  The politician wants to control property and the best way he sees it is to run for office and get elected.  The best way he sees to do that is accept help from lobbyists.  Also there may some underhanded dealings which go on but even without them they are both doing the easiest thing they know how in order to control the property.

The problem is that when government exceeds its bounds many people will look at government as the easiest way to obtain property, especially when they don’t have any moral hesitation to taking from others.  Unfortunately for the taxpayer we are seeing more and more of this today.  Banks find it easier to take from the taxpayer than make wise investments, life insurance companies control our property and send their executives out on lavish retreats despite poor performance, and the federal reserve (a group of private banks) is giving billions away and won’t even say where it is going.

Let’s stop this insanity by at least encouraging our Senators to audit the federal reserve and see what is really going on.  Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz have already signed on.  So should Hatch and Bennett.  Please call them today and ask them to support SR604. (It is actually quite small and not the usual 1200 pages full of hidden goodies).

Who needs customers when you have politicians?

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

Back in the good old days when you started a business if you had a good business plan you succeeded, if you didn’t then your business failed.  This meant that businesses that did a good job of providing customers a valuable service at a reasonable price survived and those that did not failed.

Recently certain politicians have decided to give tax payers dollars to businesses who have not been able to stay afloat due to various reasons.  Instead of just letting these businesses die which would allow resources to be allocated to more efficient ones, they insist on keeping these resources tied up in failing businesses and forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill.  If the politicians had any brains they wouldn’t invest a penny of their own money in these failing companies for fear of no return but they seem to have no problem investing yours.

I am not just talking about the bailouts of large corporations but also the Utah Festival Opera Company.  If Mr. Ballam cannot make ends meet this year and needs a huge bailout then what will happen next year if things don’t get better?  Will he ask for even more?

Also, why have local restaurants and hotels been forced to have higher prices due to the RAPZ tax?  Does it benefit them?  If it does then let them contribute if they want to.  If they don’t feel it does then they won’t.  They may even get creative and work out bundle packages with these events.  But if they are being forced all we get is more inefficiency.

What would happen if people were free to ‘vote’ with their own money instead of others voting away their money for them?

If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

The title was taken from under the title of government.  But isn’t it interesting that government creates a lot of the very problems they claim to be trying to solve, especially when it is not a power given them in the Constitution?

Let us start with the Department of Energy.  When it was formed we were importing 34.8% of our oil.  The DOE was supposed to help us get over our addiction but just the opposite has happened.  I believe we now import 60%.  How much money was forcibly taken from the citizens as taxes for this “fix”?  Where is dealing with this in the Constitution?

Another issue is education.  The Department of Education was created to make sure our kids had a better education and help us “catch up” to the Soviets.  Before this it was a local community and state issue.  What has happened since?  I think we can all agree that standards have dropped in most areas and that schools are turning more into places of government subsidized daycare rather than institutions of learning.  Were we even behind the Soviets?  They launched Sputnik but some reports indicate that we had a similar capability at the time and that they had stolen the technology from the USA.  This is another one of those things that is not in the Constitution.

Another example is the Federal Reserve.  The fed was supposed to protect us from bank failures, inflation, and economic uncertainty.  Since its creation many banks have failed, many depressions / recessions have happened, and we have had over 2000% inflation.  That means that your dollar today has less purchasing power than a nickel did before the fed was created.  Oh yeah, the fed has helped create these things by artificially lowering/raising interest rates and injecting our money supply with new money, thereby making the old stuff worth less.  Congress is supposed to coin money anyway, not give that role to somebody else.

The last one I will touch on is campaign finance.  A friend and I asked one of our senators how much money they had received from Fannie Mae.  He said it was illegal for the corporation to give them money.  But the employees would donate to a PAC and then give that money to the senator.  So let me get this straight, the corporation giving money to the politician is bad but the corporation giving the money to an employee and then to a PAC and then to the politician is OK?  That sounds very much like money laundering doesn’t it?  So the government creates a problem by giving out money that the Constitution forbids them to (bailouts) which causes corporations to want a share and then try to influence the politician.  This then creates a market for influence and hence we have this problem, created by the government and also inadequately solved by them.  What if we just stuck to the Constitution?  Wouldn’t there be much less of a market for lobbyists?

Betrayal of Jon Hunstman Jr

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

I heard some very sad news the other day.  It was about the betrayal of our governor, Jon Huntsman Jr..  He released a statement saying that he was in support of civil unions which contradicted the understanding the constituents had when he ran for governor.

There are a few dangers with civil unions that many don’t realize.

First, what is to stop them from turning into marriage. Residents of CT were promised up and down that civil unions wouldn’t turn into marriage, I was one of them. And what happened? People sued saying they weren’t equal and won and now gay marriage is legal in CT.

Second, civil unions cheapen marriage. I was reading an article about how some couples are choosing civil unions over marriage because they are easier to get out of. So much for protecting the family.

Third, with legal status it opens up all types of lawsuits to say that they must be taught in schools to be ‘fair’. Of course there are many more but that would take an essay.

This is just a cheap political trick by Huntsman. He wants to go beyond Utah and enter national politics and is willing to do whatever it takes. First he runs saying that he supports an amendment which bans civil unions and then he says he was always for them. Sorry, I just can’t make sense of it without him being a liar. And that is what we don’t need, more lying politicians at a national level.  If this was something you have believed all along then say so all along.  If this was something you changed your mind about then say that.

The Murder of the Dollar

Friday, February 6th, 2009

When I was a kid I used to watch the show called Ducktales.  This is where I received my best lesson on inflation.  In one episode they travel to a country that has no money.  Launchpad leaves a bottle cap with somebody.  Soon everybody else becomes jealous and want some.  Scrooge then give the country a lot of them.  They soon start to use them as a currency.

They soon realize that they have now ruined this happy land and seek to destroy the market that they have created.  Soon they start to dumping huge amounts of bottle caps and prices rapidly go up.  Sound familiar?  Soon the bottle cap becomes completely worthless and they ask Scrooge to remove all the garbage.

How much money has the federal reserve, a group of private banks, created recently?

This is a good story about the added money and it also has a video of Glenn Beck talking about it.  An important thing to consider is the multiplying effect of the bank reserve system we have.  If banks are required to only keep 10% of deposits then they can loan out the other 90%.  Remember though that that other 90% then gets redeposited and 90% of that, or 81% is then loaned out again.  This can happen over and over until you end up with 10X the money you started with.  So if the federal reserve adds 1trillion dollars of new money it is essentially adding 10 trillion through this multiplication effect of the bank reserve system.

Adding trillions of dollars of new money will not only destroy savings of individuals and give them automatic decreases in salary through inflation but it will also pave the way to introduce a regionalized currency like the Euro.  Politicians will tell us that it is the only way to save our economy.

For many years politicians from both parties have tried to push this country into a regionalized government similar to the European Union, with started from trade agreements.  This has been done through our own ‘free trade’ agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA which are more about regionalized government than free trade.  Fortunately many patriotic Americans have been able to at least delay these plans.  The plans continue to move forward to chip away at our sovreignty as a nation and replace our God-given Constitution with a regionalized athiestic beurocracy.

Socialized Medicine and some of the consequences

Saturday, January 3rd, 2009
I was writing an email to a friend about socialized medicine.  I figured since I had gone to all the work of writing it I should post most of it to the blog.
Let us look at this from two points of view.  Either the amount of medical care can grow or it is set.  If there is only a set amount of medical care available then who should get it?  The wealthy?  The poor?  The young?  The old?  Wouldn’t it make sense to allocate the resources to those it will most benefit?  Wouldn’t it best to allocate the resources to those who are young, working, and in relatively good health to allow them to work and produce more?  What about those who do not fall into this class?
If it is variable then what can be done to ensure that enough health care is created and that advancements are made?  Either the government or the free market could attempt to do this.  History has shown that government does a terrible job at this.  Health care ends up becoming rationed and innovation comes to a halt.  The do not create incentives for innovation and efficiency but instead remove those incentives through high taxes, inflation, and over-regulation.  Instead government creates “bread lines” and we end up with the first case.  I know this first hand with health care.  My grandmother, who lived in Canada, was very ill in April of 2008.  She was in the hospital but they ran out of beds so she was kicked out as younger people had the priority.  She was readmitted after a few days but died soon after.  Old people should be very afraid of socialized medicine, especially when the general population is getting older.  In the view of the government with limited resources they are a much lower priority to take care of, unless of course you have connections.  I don’t believe that top government officials have to wait in the ER for endless hours like the ordinary citizen.
Just look at their management of capital during the current ‘bailouts’.  What they are doing now is removing capital from those who have managed things properly and giving it to those who have poorly managed it.  Doesn’t the parable of the talents in the Bible teach us the exact opposite?
What we have also seen is that government policies have actually encouraged waste, risky loans, and just overall stupidity.  Shouldn’t those who design the best products and the best processes get the capital?  This is only done through the free market.
I say that people are much better at running their own lives than government is.  I say that people are much more qualified to know what their excess is, consecration, instead of government just taking it, socialism.  I also say let people chose to give their money to the organizations they deem most efficient at achieving their goals, which isn’t the government.  I also say let people have the choice not to give to organizations who promote things they feel are immoral, such as abortion.

Obama Politics and Bribery – Destroying the Middle Class

Saturday, November 15th, 2008

While looking at the DrudgeReport I noticed an ad for Obama.  It was how much money I would save through his tax plan.  I thought to myself, “Is this guy trying to buy my vote?”.  What isn’t mentioned is what it is going to cost me.

There is only really two types of government, rule by law, and rule by oligarchy.  Take most of the systems, monarchy, communism, dictatorship.  They are all rule by a few over the masses.  Even democracy turns into an oligarchy soon enough.  Most people do not take the time to learn about proper government or even the rules setup for our government.  The masses are easily swayed by the mass media.  Only a limited government which is kept in these limits will not turn into an oligarchy.

The Constitution was setup to be a covenant between the people and the government.  The government is a creation of the people for a specific purpose.  That purpose is clearly defined in the Constitution but scheming men have taken our government far beyond those bounds.  The powers of government have slowly been extended to take away more states’ rights and individual freedoms.

What is the effect of all of this?  Instead of power being in the hands of many it has been concentrated into the hands of the few.  Wealth is increasingly being concentrated into the hands of the few.  Is this starting to look like a monarchy?

I would like to examine a few governmental policies and explain how this is happening.  Let us look at welfare and illegal immigration.  Say I have a job working at a local store.  The pay is meager and and I cannot make ends meet.  My choices are to ask for a raise, get a better job, or live off of the taxpayers.  What do most people choose?  The easiest, live off of the tax payers.  That along with illegal immigration provides cheap labor.  Cheap labor means that the companies have more profit and most of that money ends up in the hands of the rich.  Who ends up paying for it welfare and the costs of illegal immigration?  The middle class of course.  The wealthy are prety good at avoiding taxes.  Warren Buffet once bragged he payed a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Of course we can also look at the bailouts.  How much of this money is going to undeserved bonuses for the wealthy?  I don’t mind them getting bonuses if the company wants to give it to them but I do mind it when my tax dollars are used to pay bonuses or bailout any company for that matter.

These are both examples of government being used to take money from one group to give to another.  We don’t have to look far for more examples.  Just look at Proposition 1.  How can this possibly benefit a few?  I attended the county council meeting where they decided if it should be on the ballot and one of the major proponents ended up being a consultant for the Trust for Public Lands.  That group gets 10% of the money raised in order to manage the easements purchased.  Of course she was very reluctant to admit to this conflict of interest.  I later heard radio advertisements and received mailers.  I wondered who was paying for these.  It turns out that one of the major donors to the cause was the Trust for Public Lands.  Of course they had a financial motive to have this thing passed.  Another major donor was an individual who had benefited from previous easements.  I wonder if he was trying to get more.

There are plenty of people who think they can spend your money better than you can.  Instead of forcing people to pay for your projects let them individually decide if it is worth paying for or not.

A really interesting thing to listen to is Glenn Beck about socialism and communism.  I suggest you listen to it.

Gay Marriage is a threat to people with standards

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Many people underestimate the serious threat which gay marriage is to our society.  Fortunately I was able to live in CT while the state legislature was trying to force civil unions on the people.  I was able to be educated about what was really going on  and what the potential ramifications were.  I will list a couple.

Gay marriage will be taught in schools.  As we have seen in Massachusetts gay marriage will be taught as the norm in public schools.  Others will decide what is appropriate for your kids to learn and not you. In Massachusetts a group called GLSEN was allowed to hand out very graphic how-to books to junior high kids. Sex surveys were given to elementary kids.

You may be sued if you oppose it.  We have seen in Canada that groups have been sued for ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals by not providing services for gay weddings.  This has happened to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, and a card manufacturer.  A doctor in California was sued for not helping a lesbian couple have a baby even though the doctor did it on religious beliefs and referred them to another doctor.  A photographer was fined in New Mexico for refusing to take pictures at a homosexual commitment ceremony.

People who oppose it will be discriminated against.  There have been efforts in California to prevent judges who belong to any group that finds homosexual acts immoral to rule on any case involving homosexuals.  Of course the reverse would not apply.  As we as a society continue to accept homosexuality as being OK those who oppose it will be treated much like racists are today.  It will likely become much like the GDR where it was OK to be a member of a religion but it meant that you would never get ahead in your career.

It is a threat to religious organizations.  A Canadian Ministry was fined for firing an employee who had committed homosexual acts even after the employee had signed an agreement saying she would abstain from immoral acts.  An adoption agency in Massachusetts was shutdown after refusing to adopt to homosexual couples.  It wouldn’t be surprising to see churches lose their tax exempt status for preaching that homosexual acts are wrong.

What should we do?  Of course this is just one perspective and there are many other reasons why this is a bad thing.  Go and educate yourself why this is bad and what threats there are.  Be involved.  Some people use covert methods to get their way.  There was a late USU president who tried to get USU to recognize gay marriages.  The only reason that I found out was that I was involved.

Watch out for hate crimes, a.k.a thought crimes. What they do is give extra protection to certain classes. Instead of punishing people for what they actually do they are punished for who they commit the crime against. Why should a homosexual get more protection than another? How long until it is just a crime to have a standard which others don’t like?

Now, I am not saying we should treat people who have homosexual feelings poorly. They need to be loved and respected just like anybody else.  Most are not part of this sinister plot but are only pawns.


Friday, September 19th, 2008

The county platform states that “We applaud Republican efforts to return authority from the Federal
government to the citizens and to our local governments.”  I was listening to Rob Bishop speak today at USU and he stated that he wanted to lose power by returning power back to the states.  I must say that I completely agree.

To properly understand federalism we must go back to when the Constitution was written.  There was a central government set up but it was very weak under the Articles of Confederation.  The government didn’t have power to do anything and it showed.  Something had to be done to keep the momentum gained from the Revolution to unite the states to a common government.

Due to a miracle the Constitution was formed.  It was a union of the states in which the states still held most of the power.  The federal government was created to do a limited number of things that the states could not do individually.  To ensure that the federal government did not absorb to much power very specific roles were given to it and soon after the 10th amendment made sure that it kept to those roles.  It states that ‘”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Unfortunately the lines have become blurred and rationalizations were used to create massive federal programs.  For example, the federal interstate program was created to help move troops.  It has now turned into a massive program by which the federal government controls the states.  Do what we want or you won’t get your road money.

So many of these programs have been created that many people look to the federal government instead of their local or state government or even themselves to solve current problems.

Many feel that the “General welfare” clause gives the federal government unlimited power to do whatever they want.  It states -

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Unfortunately the meaning of the word welfare has changed.  According to the American Heritage Dictionary the word means

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well]

If it is the case that the founders meant this clause to allow for unlimited federal government what is the purpose of the 10th Amendment?