The Stealth Tax

Greetings.

I hope everyone's week has been a blessed one. Plenty going on in the world, per usual, which makes it difficult to narrow it all down to just one topic per week (which is my intent). Olympic events, government crackdown on protestors in the Ukraine, and dozens of other newsworthy stories across the wire are competing for ratings and viewership. However, I would like to call our attention this week to (somewhat) lesser known news story that perhaps hasn't gotten as much press as it should , but CERTAINLY affects our life nonetheless in about as profound a way as could possibly be imagined; way more so than the Olympics or happenings in Kiev.

I'm talking specifically about the possibility of (yet another) minimum wage increase at the federal and state levels as a means to combat, in the words of President Obama, "income inequality." While the jury is still out which way any vote in Congress is likely to go, we can probably be fairly certain that any vote will likely divide both houses along party lines.

However, rather than debate one side of the issue from the legal or ideological angle of whether or not the minimum wage should (or should not) be raised, I would prefer to look at one significant (and overlooked factor) that has in fact been driving up the minimum wage for decades since its inception in 1938. Specifically, I'm referring to inflation, also unofficially referred to often as the "stealth tax." Ever since President Franklin Roosevelt essentially confiscated Americans' privately-owned gold and shifted America's monetary policy away from the gold-backed standard that was used for our currency in 1933, the value of our dollar has decreased. So bad has it become, in fact, that, according to www.usinflationcalculator.com, it would take $2,362.79 today in order to purchase goods that were worth $100 in 1913.

This is due largely to the authority given to the Federal Reserve to basically print money out of thin air and "quantitatively ease" the financial hardships of Americans as more paper money is injected into the economy. Problem is, more fiat money (as it is called, since it's not backed by a real valuable commodity such as gold) results in less purchasing power due to the dollar's diminishing value.

Fast-forward to 2014. As the dollar's value is reduced due to its not being tethered to gold or another commodity, that means that more paper dollars are needed in order for Americans to afford the goods and services they rely upon and want. That, of course, leads to a need for higher wages and pay just to so Americans can make up the difference between higher costs and their own earnings. And this is what essentially drives the entire discussion of hiking the minimum wage again and again.

People complain about taxes driving up the cost of goods and services, and they do. But there's a reason inflation is often referred to as "the Stealth Tax." Simply put, it rarely gets much press, but has steadily been eating away at the earnings of Americans at every income level for decades. We need a return to the gold standard.

The only problem is, neither major party is even hinting at the possibility of making such a drastic move. Whether its fear of their own constituents and potential loss of power, or whether they simply don't understand or believe in basic economics and sound money we may never know. The bottom line is that our money will continue to lose value as long as our monetary policy remains as unsound as it has been for the better part of a century.

It is incumbent upon us as citizens to lobby our elected officials at the local, state, and federal level to push not only for a more sound monetary policy, but also to push for the elimination of laws against legal tender. Free citizens should be allowed to barter and trade with their fellow man as they see fit, rather than be tied to a federally-created, federally-controlled, and federally-mandated paper currency that is killing their purchasing power and robbing them of their wealth. My encouragement thus is for you to get involved and stay involved and vigilant. It is your future.

Until next week, live free or die.

-Warren Brisbane

Government Force - "A Loaded Gun" (Inaugural post)

Welcome to the Inaugural Post of "The Brisbane File."

Here, I hope to educate, as well as discuss, principles of liberty with any and all people who wish to interact and who are concerned about the current trajectory of this once-great nation. It almost goes without saying that these are perilous days for individual liberty, as well as for the United States Constitution, and as such, it is incumbent upon patriots (aka - liberty-lovers) everywhere to get involved, pay attention, and take action wherever necessary and possible. My hope is that this blog will assist in that effort somehow.


For this inaugural post, I would like to start out by telling a little bit of my own story; specifically about how I became a libertarian, but on an even more fundamental level, about how I learned that affirming and living by the principles of liberty goes beyond any particular party affiliation. In truth, it goes right to the heart of human dignity. If men are not free to pursue their own nonviolent interests free of the shackles of other men, then at that point, their quality and essence of life can only be diminished. On the other hand, if men are free to live, work, and create, there is hardly any limit to their potential.


With that being said, let me begin. I am an ordained and licensed Christian, Protestant, Southern Baptist minister. Some people find that surprising when they also learn of my political and philosophical beliefs. Indeed, I have not found many like-minded people in my immediate professional sphere of influence. And that is okay. My path is my own and I am happy to walk it with as many or as few people as are willing to join me. I cannot coerce anyone into thinking like I do or believing how I do, anymore than they can coerce me. And truthfully, I would have it no other way.


I suppose at this point I could go into detail about how my views on politics gradually shifted as Barack Obama was elected president back in 2008 and how I began to see just how political power given to a government can be used against ANYONE (including myself) once it's been granted. But I won't. Instead, I'll simply say that government power is probably best regarded as a loaded gun. What do I mean by that? Well, who wants to find themselves standing in diametrical opposition to the muzzle of an operational firearm? And yet, we cheer our government officials onward as they continually point the loaded gun of unconstitutional and arbitrary power at citizen after citizen, not realizing that that same gun can be (and often is) eventually pointed directly at each and every one of us.


For example, I can recall reading an excerpt from a DHS memo some time ago that suggested that gun-owners and veterans (two categories that fit me) might be subject to closer scrutiny by the government simply because there may be individuals within that demographic that would want to take hostile action against the State. This of course was years after the Patriot Act had been passed, and had given the President and other federal officials broad powers to warrantlessly spy on American citizens (mostly of Middle Eastern heritage) in an effort to prevent terrorist activity. THIS I had no problem with. Of course, they should be spied upon, I reasoned. They attacked us on 9/11. As long as that loaded gun is pointed elsewhere, why should it concern me?


Now it was being pointed at me, as a gun owner and as a military veteran.


Another example is gay marriage. As a Bible-believing minister, I will NEVER preside over the union of a homosexual couple. However, does that mean I have to support our DEEPLY flawed marriage-licensing system which results in higher taxes and fewer legal benefits for one group of people...just because I may disagree with their lifestyle? I don't think it does. Furthermore, and just to once again reiterate the "loaded gun principle," I believe that the history of marriage licensing should tell us all we need to know about the practice of marriage licensing itself.


During Reconstruction following the Civil War, marriage licensing was used as a means to DENY freed slaves and whites the right to intermarry with one another. Now, while there may be a few surviving people who still disagree with interracial marriage for one reason or another, I doubt many people would want to see a law put back on the books that mirrors what was done during the middle of the 1800s. And yet, such a thing is possible, isn't it? Why is it possible? It's possible simply because we have left the power to define marriage (or "protect" it, if you're a social conservative) in the hands of government, rather than leave that authority in the hands of individuals, communities, and places of worship, where it belongs. And with that being the case, is it entirely unreasonable that government might one day choose to train its "marriage cross-hairs," if you will, on the same heterosexuals who have so vehemently pushed for those cross-hairs being trained on other groups?


Issues like this are essentially what have sparked my transformation from a fairly staunch Republican to someone who simply wants the government's gun unloaded and put away until legitimate threats to life, liberty, and private property surface (which they often do, only to be ignored by this very same government of ours).


I could go on, but I'll stop here. There is plenty more to be said and plenty more to discuss. My hope is to have the opportunity to do both. For the time being, however, I'll summarize: goverment power, much like a loaded gun, can be used against anyone. The best way, therefore, to ensure that a society operates justly with the best interest of all at heart, is to allow men to live, work, and produce freely as long as their actions don't injure the well-being or property of another. Then, and only then, should government force be applied.


Thanks for reading.


Until next week, live free!


-Warren Brisbane