Posts by Daniella:
Squeeze the Producer: America’s “Statist” Quo
July 17th, 2012By Daniella M. Augenstein.
Applause and cheers of “yes!” and “that’s right!” echoed throughout the venue in Roanoke, Virginia on Friday as President Barack Obama spoke to hundreds about the deficit, cutting spending, the golden years of the Clinton administration, and the fact that business owners are not actually responsible for what they have created and earned.
Wait … what?
Yes, you read it right. In his speech, Obama dismissed outright the idea that business owners have a justifiable claim to the successes of their own businesses. Instead, he had this to say:
If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
He is right about one thing: there are, indeed, many smart and hardworking people out there. And many of them would be much more successful by way of those qualities if they were free to succeed, and benefit from their actions. Alas, we live in a system where those who are successful must work within a system that punishes the achievement of the ever more elusive American Dream.
This is particularly true for those whose success is financial. Many Americans, at the prompting of statements like the President’s, reserve a special flavor of disdain for the wealthy in America.
The premise of this section of Obama’s speech is this: because others have come before you, and have achieved things themselves, you cannot lay claim to your own successes. According to this line of reasoning, they – not you – are responsible for your success. I suppose he would say the same thing about them of their ancestors. Or would he?
Human knowledge builds on the knowledge of previous generations. Nobody is denying this; indeed, they would have a very hard time of doing so if they were. But in recognizing that credit must be given where it is due, it is also necessary to recognize the value and utmost importance of the entrepreneur’s singular vision in the creation of her business. Perhaps she had a wonderful teacher who taught her the value of proper budgeting and long-term planning, and perhaps this knowledge lent itself to creating a sound budget for her business. While helpful, however, it is not critical. Indeed, the only aspect of the business owner’s creation that is truly irreplaceable is the vision of the mind that created it.
Past knowledge is used for present and future endeavors, but something new is always added – something that nobody has done before. That is, after all, what makes it new. Without that teacher, the proprietor may have gone about budgeting a different way. But without that proprietor, the business would never have existed in the first place.
Nobody is more directly responsible for the existence and subsequent success of a business than those who envisioned it, took risks, made the proper choices, and brought that idea into the world. And, unlike the employees who are compensated for their work with a regular paycheck, the business owner often takes a loss well before he makes a profit, only paying himself once all other expenses (including payroll) have been tended to. The only compensation that is not guaranteed is his own.
Here, we must be clear: there is a reason that the President takes the view that he does, and it is critical not to lose sight of this point. It is not because it sounds good (though to his base, it does), or even because he believes it (though he may). It is because it sets him up to take the position that what the business owner has earned is not his own.
This is not about credit. This is about compensation. President Obama premises his position on the notion that what you have earned was not really due to you, thus you cannot really lay claim to it. He ignores entirely the fact that, if all transactions and agreements were made freely and voluntarily to the satisfaction of all parties involved, then just compensation has already been established.
The idea that the business owner makes his millions off of the sweat and tears of his toiling workers is hyperbolic and, frankly, ridiculous. And the President knows it. He also knows the grip that such a view still claims over much of America. He – like so many before him – uses the vernacular of emotionally driven class warfare in his battle to vilify those who produce.
Barack Obama does not wish to be committed to the view that nobody has earned anything, and thus cannot claim anything. He seems to be attempting to toe this line by asserting that it simply is someone else who earned the money, or is otherwise responsible for one’s business:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
He clearly wants to be able to say that somebody is responsible, and can lay claim to your success. It just isn’t you.
Is Speech in the US Still Free?
June 25th, 2012By Daniella Augenstein.
U.S. Citizens and non-citizens alike often take the First Amendment for granted. We do not always think about it; but when we do, most of us believe that it will always be there. We act on that assumption every day. We exercise our Constitutionally protected ability to speak our minds freely, no matter how controversial our thoughts may be.
But is freedom of speech still alive and well in what was once the freest country on earth?
Calling attention to our views is, in this country, a natural part of life. If we do not like the decision Congress is about to make, we protest. If we believe that an issue is not getting the attention it deserves, we create a petition. If we are simply fed up and cannot take it anymore, regardless of what “it” is, we assert our contrary positions.
The Occupy Movement was one such example, and catalyzed the now well-known rhetoric surrounding the 1% and 99%. It largely served to increase tensions between economic classes without offering any real solutions to the problems to which it called attention. Even so, no matter where one stood on the positions offered by the movement, there is no question about their right to offer them. Freedom of speech, after all, is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
But there are other factors at play. One such factor is the climate of fear and itchy trigger fingers that have gripped the country since the attacks of 9/11, and which have fundamentally changed our security landscape. Also included is such legislation as the Patriot Act, giving the government the legal standing to monitor any actions that they deem potentially threatening. Something as seemingly harmless as searching for the wrong term out of curiosity on your favorite search engine might land you on an FBI watch list. Involved in a politically active group? There is a good chance that you have already been flagged.
Speaking your mind was once not only allowed, but encouraged and protected. In fact, the Founding Fathers of this great country believed that this issue was so important – so very central to constructive discourse and leadership – that they successfully sought to make it the very first Amendment to the Constitution. It is not enough to assume that speech is free, and they knew that. It must be actively fostered and protected where necessary, and this must be the case in any society that wishes to reach its greatest potential.
Today, however, we are watching as this freedom is chipped away steadily and with a strong hand. Not only are we faced with an over-zealous government covering the country in red flags in the name of “security,” but we must also face what is perhaps an even greater threat: political correctness. The eggshells that we have been walking on since uttering our first words are now beginning to show the bloodstains of the inevitable cuts they leave behind.
There may be no better illustration of this than on college campuses. In university classrooms across the country, students who speak out against the grain are often engaged in a discussion with their instructors that is reserved only for those students with whom the professors disagree. In fact, I have witnessed this first-hand: I was once openly laughed at by a professor while I gave a presentation on solutions to our current fiscal woes. Because my position did not give credence to bank hatred or excessive regulation, I was made a mockery of in front of a class of almost 100 students. I was not given the same opportunity to offer my position unfettered to the class as were those students who echoed my professor’s viewpoints.
An underhanded and subtle attack on our freedom of expression and speech is on the rise. The next generation of world leaders is being taught, in no uncertain terms, that it must accept certain positions and reject others in such a way that does not allow the indoctrinated positions to be placed under the scrutiny of rational discourse.
If you still find yourself in a position of inquiry, wondering whether or not this freedom is at risk, consider the story of Ray McGovern, the 71-year-old U.S. Army veteran who endured a physical confrontation with police for turning his back on Hillary Clinton as she chastised foreign leaders for disrespecting the rights of their people. According to David Swanson of Truthout.org:
“As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday about the failures of foreign leaders to respect people’s freedoms, a 71-year-old U.S. veteran Army officer, a man who spent 27 years in the CIA and delivered presidential daily briefs, a peace activist and proponent of nonviolence, the man who famously confronted Donald Rumsfeld for his war lies, the man who drafted our letter to Spain and delivered it to the Spanish Embassy on Monday, our friend Ray McGovern turned his back in silence. As Clinton continued to speak about respecting the rights of protesters, her guards — including a uniformed policeman and an unidentified plain-clothed official — grabbed Ray, dragged him off violently, brutalized him, double-cuffed him with metal handcuffs, and left him bleeding in jail. As he was hauled away… Ray shouted “So this is America?” Clinton went right on mouthing her hypocrisies without a pause.” Truthout
You can watch the video here.
If we cannot question what we are taught, or even stand silently with our backs turned to those with whom we disagree, then one thing becomes clear: the First Amendment is losing ground. If only certain positions are to be considered socially acceptable, and all others are thrown to the wolves of political correctness and national security, then the benefits of protecting free speech and expression are lost. Whether or not the First Amendment and its legal protection exist is only a secondary consideration to the more immediately critical question: are we actively suppressing free speech in this country through other means? The answer, sadly, seems to be yes. And, until we remove the shackles of political correctness and fear (not only of external threats, but also of public scrutiny), this will remain so.