What Would I Do If I Could? (Part Three)

Thank you for tuning in to the next installment of Cal Bowen's "What Would I Do If I Could?" In this episode, Cal analyzes the foreign policy of the United States and what actions he feels need to be taken.







Foreign affairs consist of a wide variety of issues so complex one could spend a lifetime studying and never hope to fully understand a single one of them. It is about dealing with situations in which different cultures are in conflict either with each other or with your own. Understanding a different culture is an extremely difficult task, but it is one that must be done in order to effectively carry out foreign policy.

The United States and the rest of Western civilization have utterly failed at this task in the previous half century in a multitude of ways. Good intentions were always in their hearts, but the leaders of the “civilized world” never fully understood the cultures of the places that they controlled in the age of Imperialism. In the Middle East and Africa, land was divided not by cultures or previously established nations, but in artificial landmasses that fit the bill for the Europeans who controlled the territory. The Middle Eastern problems were exacerbated with the establishment of the Israeli state. That in and of itself may have been a good idea, but forcibly displacing people from their homes is just bad policy. When you consider the fact that you are doubly spitting in their face by taking away the Holy Land from a religion nearly unanimous in the region, you are asking for trouble.

Years of policies instituting the famous idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” continued to damage the already awful situation by propping up cruel dictatorships that would turn some of these regions into slaughterhouses. We must learn from our mistakes.

Today, the United States finds itself in a Global War on Terror, and yes, this is a real war. The turmoil of the Middle East that may have in fact been partially stoked by our own actions created an environment in which radicalism has a perfect recruiting ground. The key to the situation that we must understand is that Terrorism is not a form of Islam; it is a form of radicalism. Radicalism is something we have seen and experienced repeatedly in human society. The Ku Klux Klan depended on the same radicalism.

The Ku Klux Klan, which arose in the Southern United States after it had been ravaged by war. The way of life known by Southerners was gone and people needed something to blame. Radicalism breeds on that environment. African-Americans became the scapegoat. The Ku Klux Klan funneled that bitterness and hatred onto a race. They used the Christian religion as a vehicle.

Terrorism is a form of radicalism that utilizes Islam as a vehicle. When two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, that terrorism reached its destination: The United States of America. We are the targets of their bitterness. We are the scapegoats for their frustration. While we may be guilty of poor judgment in our foreign policy in the past, nothing we did deserved the cruel action of that September morning.

That morning affected this nation on a deep psychological level. As has been reiterated numerous times before, we were made vulnerable here at home. The great oceans no longer separated us from our enemies.

The nation rallied together, as it always does when it is attacked, and sought vengeance on its enemies. That, however, was an error, and, a different purpose for the Global War on Terror must be made clear. We should not be out to get back at those who got us. We should be out to prevent it from happening again.

Vengeance led us to Afghanistan, the location of the Taliban and, we believed, Osama bin Laden. The war in Afghanistan was relatively successful and the Taliban, as it was once known, was devastated. This makes the war good in the name of preventing future attacks as well. The Taliban certainly was in no place to attack us again. That would not last long, however, as long as the breeding ground that created it still existed.

A true fight to prevent another attack must go further than vengeance. The fight must extend into the heart of the Middle East and it must extinguish the burning fire of injustice. A stable, free and democratic state in the Middle East would, in theory, be the first step towards relieving the people of their bitterness.

Two fundamental questions arise at this point. What is the best way to go about establishing a democracy in the Middle East? Do the American people just want vengeance or do they want prevention?

In the Middle East, Iraq was the perfect target. The war would be easy to sell. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who openly defied both the US and UN. The United States had already defeated him once, meaning his military was relatively weak. The plan seemed perfect; however, the execution was unsound.

A strategy for the establishment of a new democratic state through military force must take into account the need for stabilization throughout the region. For this reason, an invasion must take its time to clean out all of the towns on its way to the capital and then hold those locations and maintain stability. This strategy also allows for a certain amount of border security to prevent insurgents. When the US invaded Iraq, however, they avoided all resistance possible and raced to Baghdad, leaving many fights to be fought at a later date, and allowing even more fighters to enter from neighboring countries. This strategy required fewer soldiers, but simply wasted valuable time in the war effort.

Another critical mistake in the execution of the strategy was the manner in which the United States ostracized all those affiliated with Saddam’s regime. Every member of the Baath party was robbed of his job. This becomes clearly insane when you recognize that the Baath party was similar to the Communist party of the Soviet Union in that all upper-class, academic, or security jobs required membership in the party. Effectively, this order fired all the police, all of the teachers, and many other instrumental members of society. Incidentally, the decision led to the firing of Saddam’s border patrol. Where do you think they turned for money?

The many mistakes in execution led to a prolonged war in Iraq, which extended beyond the expiration date of America’s passionate anger against Terrorists. The desire for vengeance was gone. The political engine behind the Global War on Terror failed.

At this point, Iraq is a mess. The surge of troops in Iraq is helping simply because of the added security. The only way to maintain success, however, is to alter the course in Iraq and to take into account cultural facts.

The land on which the current Iraqi state is situated was originally three distinct states when it belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The states were situated along sectarian lines that are still evident today. The Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions are very evident. The region has been in turmoil ever since the British Empire, during the age of Imperialism, formed one state out of these three distinct cultures. (World Press)

The most important step that must be taken at this point for the future of Iraq and the United States is that Iraq must be converted into a federal system of three distinct states. These states could operate together loosely with a capital city in Baghdad. This is the only way the great disagreements between the regions can be settled.

The next step in solving the problems of the Middle East must be a renewed sense of diplomacy with states such as Iran and Syria. These states stand against all of our goals in the Middle East. We must talk with them in an effort to further understand their culture and their grievances. Communication is the key to the solution of all conflicts. While communication sometimes breaks down, we must not cut off lines of communication until absolutely necessary.

It is absolutely essential that the United States find a solution to the problems in Iraq. Other conflicts are eminent. North Korea is under the oppressive rule of an insane dictator bent on becoming recognized as a world power. The entire continent of Africa seems to be the forgotten about, but their struggles are perhaps even worse than that of the Middle East. In Darfur, we are seeing massive genocide. The only thing that separates the terrorists of the Middle East and those of Africa is the Middle Eastern terrorists are targeting the United States; African terrorists are targeting different Africans. The world may not need a policeman, but it certainly needs a leader who is willing to call things what they are. Somebody must stand for those being persecuted in North Korea and Darfur. Who will it be if not the United States?

What Would I Do If I Could? (Part Two)

Thank you for tuning in to the next installment of Cal Bowen's "What Would I Do If I Could?" In this episode, Cal analyzes the economy of the United States and what actions he feels need to be taken.


“The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Those were the words of Ronald Reagan. Nearly all of the problems of the American economy stem from government intervention.


Let’s take a brief look at the history of the United States tax system. The U.S. Treasury web site provides a detailed account. If you wish to learn more, please visit:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
“For most of our nation's history, individual taxpayers rarely had any significant contact with Federal tax authorities as most of the Federal government's tax revenues were derived from excise taxes, tariffs, and customs duties.” The income tax was first introduced during the Civil War to pay for high war costs quickly. The Supreme Court later struck down the income tax as unconstitutional because it was not proportional to state population, as the Constitution required of any tax levied on citizens.

The next time that the income tax was introduced into American society was in 1913 when the sixteenth amendment was ratified to legalize an income tax. Interestingly enough, it was the Southern and Mid-Western farmers who supported the amendment because they wished to take a bite out of the Industrial northeast. The income tax was supposed to replace high tariffs, which were not sound economic policy. Little did they know they were fighting fire with fire.

The income tax was incredibly low in the first few years, starting at 1% on earnings over $500,000 and growing to 7%. When World War I came around, a need for income arose once more. The income rate was raised and more brackets were created, with some incomes being taxed at up to 67%. Still, in the end, a mere 5% of the population of the United States paid income taxes. That 5% paid for one-third of the war.

After World War I, there were the “Roaring Twenties.” Calvin Coolidge became President in 1923 upon the death of Warren G. Harding. Coolidge had an old-school way of viewing the way the government should run. He once said, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” He appointed a man named Andrew Mellon to be his Treasury Secretary.

During Coolidge’s administration, Mellon worked to lower income taxes to further stimulate economic growth spurred by World War I. The successes were amazing. According to The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes, after reducing income taxes for the highest incomes by 50 percent (and that means from 75% to 25%), “the after-inflation earnings of employees grew 16 percent from 1923 – 1929 … Mellon was managing to balance the budget and to reduce the staff of tax officials at the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The policy was so well regarded that even Democrats, the party of the income tax, argued for lower taxes.” Unemployment dropped. The national debt was reduced by 33%. Even Thomas Edison, in a New York Times interview endorsed Coolidge for President for a second full term. But, alas, Coolidge felt it was time to step down after serving one and a half terms. Prosperity seemed eternal.

Then, the stock market crash of 1929 occurred. While the causes of the crash have been blamed greatly on unethical business practices of the era, the greater picture is often misplaced. Stock market crashes were not uncommon by any stretch of the imagination in our nation’s economic history. The stock market dropped 40% from 1916 to 1917 and again from 1939 to 1942, 45% from 1973-1974, 46% from 1901-1903 and 1919 to 1921, and 48% in 1929. That’s the big one right? That’s the one that led to the Great Depression, right? Well, actually, that’s not the worst drop we’ve seen. There are three stock market drops greater than that of 1929, the worst of which was a drop of, get this, 86% in 1932!

So, what exactly could have caused the continued economic downturn that would lead to the depths of the Great Depression? Well, the American government, in its infinite wisdom, increased the income tax dramatically in response to the stock market crash of 1929 because it saw a loss in revenue. Herbert Hoover, an engineer by trade, sought to engineer an economic recovery. To fund his programs, he needed money, and the only way he could get it was to raise taxes back up. By 1936, he had raised the income tax back up to 79% for the top bracket and 4% for the lowest.

So what? So the government took money away from the rich to give to the poor, what’s the problem? The problem is that the only way to sustain a genuine economic recovery, and to put food in people’s mouths permanently, is to stimulate economic growth, to foster new business, and to create jobs. What’s the saying? “Give a man a fish; he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish; he’ll eat for the rest of his life.” The rich create businesses to make further profit. Those businesses provide jobs to those who need them and create products for others to consume, creating a never-ending cycle. When you create an environment, however, where you penalize profit, take money away from those who create jobs, and create uncertainty over the future of the economy, you devastate chances at economic recovery.

Since those days, we have crawled out of the depths of the Great Depression. After years of more programs and continually high taxes under FDR, World War II bailed the country out of a horrible economic situation. Since that time, however, the United States economy has continued to be hampered by a cumbersome government intent on implementing social engineering through economic policy. While the men who espouse these theories certainly were not Communist, they were clearly influenced by Communist doctrine.

Today, these policies have created a class of dependency, people who need and feel they deserve government support. In reality, the best ruler of economic activity is the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith. Supply and demand, the basic principles of a capitalistic society are far superior at the generation of jobs and continued support of both the rich and the poor. All the government can do is give a man a fish.

The first action that must be taken in order to return the American economy to its full strength is to repeal the sixteenth amendment. The income tax is an irrational tax code formulated out of necessity, not as the principle method of raising government revenue. It punishes economic success. It creates class warfare that Karl Marx insisted upon. The best alternative is the Fair Tax which would establish a flat sales tax across the board. Think about it. A sales tax actually makes sense. The government actually provides a service for those goods to be available to you. The government paid for the roads for them to be brought to you own. The government defends your right to purchase it. The government deserves a certain amount of pay for the availability of those goods.

Some argue that the sales tax is regressive and would penalize the poor. While I do not believe that would necessarily be the case, sense we’re talking about a percentage of purchases that would include those big yachts and and fancy toys, do you not agree that it is better to create further incentive to succeed economically rather than to punish you for doing so? Also, one more positive, wouldn’t it be great if we had a tax system that had no loopholes for the rich? This would fill the bill. You buy something, you pay x percent. No loophole there. It’s simple. It’s fair.

The next action that must be taken in our economy today is we must destroy the government-run programs designed to distribute income. This really goes hand-in-hand with the argument above, but I felt I should clarify it. Programs such as Social Security essentially take money from the rich and give to the poor. It sounds like a good idea, but what you get in the long run, as we can see today, is a class of people who have become dependent on the government, and, in this case, a party. The irony is that the program intended to lessen the gap between rich and poor in actuality widens the gap and creates more poor. The economic burden of welfare harms the economy, decreases the number of jobs available, and, worst of all, keeps people coming back for more. In the end, you get a system that can no longer pay for itself. We should begin a phased removal of all government programs designed to distribute wealth, beginning with the privatization of Social Security as soon as possible.

One last issue I would like to address in the economy is that of the minimum wage. The minimum wage was another idea designed with the best of intentions, with horrible results. Wages for all jobs are naturally determined on a supply and demand basis. When a person applies for a job, he is competing with all other applicants. All of the applicants represent the supply. The demand is how much the businesses are willing to pay for those potential employees. In the end, the business will set a wage that somebody is willing to work for, and that is the most efficient level of wages. This is how the system works. The minimum wage takes the process out of the hands of employers and employees and, instead, places it in the hands of politicians in Washington, D.C. This is dangerous because politicians are always out for the vote and employees vastly outnumber employers. That is why the minimum wage set by Washington will always favor the employee and be higher than what is most efficient. This may seem negligible, but it won’t seem so negligible when you are competing for a job that doesn’t exist anymore because the company had to cut back somewhere to make up for lost profit.

All of these issues tie together in the basic concept of government non-intervention. The government has never done a single thing to help the economy other than to cut taxes, which is, essentially, deciding not to do as much. We must move the country in the direction of a smaller government that allows the free market system to truly run the economy. It’s the best system ever designed and it is responsible for every success we have seen.

What Would I Do If I Could? (Part One)

People often complain about the condition of the country. Politicians make careers out of attacking the establishment, often times doing absolutely nothing themselves, becoming part of the very establishment they attack. I think it’s time that somebody stands up and says exactly what they would do differently and why, so that is what I’m going to do in this note.

I’m going to attempt to break down the responsibilities of the federal government into three broad categories: social, economic, and foreign affairs. Each category consists of numerous issues, and I could never hope to cover them all. I will, however, attempt to touch on the issues that I feel are most urgent and deserving of attention at the moment. This is part one of the series, in which I discuss the social issues that face this country.

The social issues that face this nation are part of an overarching decay in the moral fabric of the nation. The United States entered into a new age during the 1950s. Economic prosperity allowed the attention of the nation to shift towards eradicating the social issues that have plagued the nation since its founding. The stains of racism and hate were not easily removed. A decade of violence and upheaval nearly tore the country apart, but built the foundation for a better America.

Today, however, have we built our house too big for that foundation? Great leaders like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King had a dream for this nation. I do not believe, though, that dream consisted of a nation where faith is ridiculed in the public square, where homosexual marriage is pushed into the mainstream, and where the unborn are unprotected in an effort to protect imaginary rights. Martin Luther King himself was a minister and John F. Kennedy a Catholic, a fact he did not conceal or shy away from.

Any effort to revive the social state of this country, must begin by recognizing that the United States is indeed a Christian nation. The Supreme Court found this to be true in its 1892 ruling, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States.

“These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation … we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.
The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.
Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.”

President Woodrow Wilson had this to say about the United States:

“A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about …
The Bible… is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation.
America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”

The quotations go on forever. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, member of the First and Second Constitutional Congresses, and co-author of the Federalist Papers, referred to the United States as a Christian nation. The simple truth of the matter is that the United States was indeed “born a Christian nation.” The message of freedom and liberty was preached from the pulpit. The importance of the church must never be forgotten in the creation of this great nation.

Today, it seems as though we have forgotten where we came from. We have to make a choice as a nation today. Do we remember our origins, the Christian threads with which the fabric of our nation’s history has been woven, or do we forget?

We must realize, first and foremost, what a Christian nation is. A Christian nation is not a nation where all of its citizens are Christians. A Christian nation is not a nation built around a central church. These are the things our founding fathers wished to avoid with the writing of the First Amendment. They saw the corruption of the Church of England. They did not like the mingling of the state in matters of the church. Never in their wildest dreams, however, could they have imagined a nation that shunned the celebration of faith.

Religion and morality are inseparable, two strands of a single chord. The concept that we, as a nation, can write laws and maintain justice absent of religious influence is, frankly, absurd. The public officials who write laws have a responsibility to themselves, their constituents, and their God to fight for what they believe is right. What a person believes is right depends entirely on their faith. The concept that we must get through our skulls is that faith is not simply a factor in our decisions; faith is who we are as people. Asking public officials to separate their faith from their public policy is unfair and irrational.

As such, it is important that we allow our personal opinions into the public debate on the issues of marriage and abortion. Let democracy play out.

Isn’t life one of those inalienable rights dictated in our Declaration of Independence? For whom do we mean that right applies; those that are already living? What kind of a right is that if it only applies for those that have it already? Abortion must be outlawed in all circumstances apart from the case of a mother whose life is greatly endangered by giving birth.

On the issue of homosexual marriage, I believe that we need a general overhaul in the way we view marriage. Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony celebrating a commitment between a man and a woman. Marriage is belittled by the paperwork and bureaucracy that is government. Marriage should be left to the church.

These issues are just small parts of a larger crisis facing this country. We must stop the campaign to remove faith from the public square. Religious communication is the pinnacle of human achievement. The ability to consider that which goes beyond what we see is the single quality that completely separates mankind from all other creatures on the planet. Why should we revert to ignoring that which makes us great? Instead, we should encourage religious discussion in any way we can, not suppress it in order to avoid conflict.