Yes, I’ve harped already about the United States being a representative republic and not a democracy, and I’ll continue to bring it up as long as the clueless talk about “our democracy.” Yes, I’m specifically calling President Obama and Elena Kagan, his pick for the Supreme Court, clueless.

Most recently I saw this mistaken idea of American democracy on Facebook. It was a simple link to saying, “Sick of corporate corruption? Join me and Stand for Democracy.” Ignoring momentarily the three planks that Stand For Democracy is calling for, here’s the list of partners:

Can you spot the common theme running through these groups? If you said that they are all liberal groups, you win the prize. So knowing their fellow travelers, let’s see what Stand For Democracy is standing for:

Overturn Citizens United:

Amend the Constitution to protect America from unlimited corporate spending on our elections by overturning the Supreme Court’s decision giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as people.

“Evil corporations. Evil!” I can almost see them holding up a crucifix and stakes to ward off the evil corporations. They don’t seem to understand that a corporation is nothing more than a group of people banded together. And people DO have First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s decision was a good one, but it means corporations can have a voice in government actions when those actions affect their business and their people.

Fair elections now:

Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, providing public financing to candidates who are supported by small donors so they can compete with corporate-backed and self-funded candidates.

Did you notice that there is no mention here of union-backed candidates? SEIU has emerged as a big player in the past two to three years. And the head of SEIU, Andrew Stern, was the leading visitor to the White House in the first six months of President Obama’s administration. But union money and influence is just fine for liberals because unions share their liberal vision. Corporations do not have the same monolithic political leanings, so they must be blocked. And this is fair?

Lobbyist Reform Act:

Pass legislation to end the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbyists by: prohibiting individuals from switching from corporate lobbying to government service, or vice-versa, within a 5-year period; stopping corporate lobbyists from giving gifts and providing free travel to government officials; and posting online the attendees and content of all meetings between lobbyists and government officials (or their staffs).

And here we have a third attack on corporations. Bad, evil, nasty corporations. Seeing a trend? Don’t get me wrong: I would love to have more transparency in government, but I don’t see it happening at all with this administration. Yes, President Obama talked a good talk about how his administration would be the most transparent, but his actions have put the lie to his words. I’m guessing that much like a stopped clock, this group has a good idea with transparency, but the idea of throwing more and more legislation at a problem is a quintessentially liberal big government idea. When confronted with a problem, I prefer the option of personal freedom over government restrictions.

But what do I know? Well, at least I know that we live in a representative republic and not a democracy.

Let’s suppose that you are an ocean diver with an air hose connecting your diving helmet to the air supply on the boat. And let’s also suppose that the manager on the boat is anxious for the job to finish faster. He’s not diving to help get the job done, but he is certainly willing to tell you how to do the work. And to motivate you, he steps on the air hose while telling you to work faster. Sounds pretty dumb, doesn’t it? How does choking off his life-giving air make the diver work better? The diver needs all the air he can get since cutting down on the air flow starves the diver of the vital oxygen he needs to work at his best.

Likewise, the government is guilty of stepping on the economic air hose every time it raises taxes, especially when companies are the ones being taxed. Corporate taxes depress economic activities just as standing on a diver’s air hose depresses that diver’s ability to work. Taxes are an economic punishment, and people will respond to punishments by doing less of that which is punished. It’s just basic human nature. So a government tax on business activities will result in fewer business activities, and in a time of a recession, do we really want to depress the economy further?

“But the government needs to tax businesses! The government uses that tax money to ‘prime the pump’ of the economy during a recession.” That’s the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, but Keynesian economics just don’t work. You can see this by taking it to the extreme. If government were to tax businesses at 100% and redirect the results to ‘prime the pump’ of the economy, what would be the result? Sure, the government would pull in taxes the first year, but once businesses realized that the government was serious in taking all their profits, business owners would close their factory and office doors. Why would they work hard for no reward? And if businesses were to shut down, how much of an economy would be left? With a dead economy, the government would get nothing from taxing the vanished businesses, and nothing from a non-working public, so just how successful was “priming the pump?”

Let’s reverse it and see what happens: suppose government dropped the business tax rate to 0%. With no one stepping on their air hose, businesses would be unleashed to work as hard as they wanted to make money, and the economy would roar to life. After all, the economy is not the government handing out confiscated money, but it is businesses and people working for themselves. “But how will the government get the tax revenue it needs to run the country?” Well, if the government doesn’t need to “prime the pump” with confiscated money, its needs are smaller. But because a business is comprised of people, the government will still get taxes from the workers. And interestingly enough, when government has reduced tax rates on businesses and people, the total taxes brought into the treasury go up because the economy runs better with the government off its air hose. It happened with the tax rate drop proposed by President Kennedy and passed after his death. It happened with President Reagan’s cuts in 1983. And it happened again with President Bush in 2003.

Can you point to a time when government “priming the pump” has met with equivalent success? President Roosevelt is often held up as an example of triumphant Keynesian economics, but it’s not the example people think it is. The economy was certainly depressed when FDR entered office, but all the economically stifling actions he pushed for only succeeded in depressing the economy for a full decade. Likewise, the actions of the current administration have done little to stimulate the economy. Unemployment is hovering around 10%, and businesses are wary of hiring as the government continues to meddle, and the economy remains lifeless.

What is the solution for our current doldrums? If the government would step off the economic air hose by greatly lowering tax rates on people and businesses and drastically cutting back on government deficit spending, the economy would explode with activity. And when the economy is roaring along, the lowered tax rates will still result in increased revenue to the government’s coffers, money that the government could use to pay down our country’s debt.

How can I state this with such confidence? Simply because it has worked that way every time it’s been done. Let’s try an economic theory that has a proven track record.

Now hear this!Victor Davis Hanson writes so very well. I wish I had a modicum of his talent, but I’ll get by with just pointing people to his writing instead. Go read a recent article that ties together Helen Thomas, Turkey, and the recent PR nightmare of the “peace flotilla” sent to Gaza. To whet your appetite, here is how he sums up the current situation for Israel, but go read the whole thing.

Israelis should assume by now that whether they act tentatively or strongly, the negative reaction will be the same. Therefore why not project the image of a strong, unapologetic country to a world that has completely lost its moral bearings, and is more likely to respect Israel’s strength than its past concern for meeting an impossible global standard?

How odd that the more the activists, political leaders, and media figures issue moral strictures against Israel, the more they prove abjectly amoral. And the more they seek to pressure Israel, the more they are liberating it to do what it feels it must.