THANKS FOR THE CASH, SUCKERS, ha ha ha.

Hey! wait a second, I'm a tax payer!
So, some of that money came from me; hell, maybe all of it came from me.
Just how much of my own bond profit did I pay for?
Trying to track the path of one individual tax dollar, is like tracking a drop of rain into a lake. (a big lake, at that.) However it isn't a far reach to say that my own tax dollars went to pay the entire interest playback on those bonds. Just as your tax dollars have paid your own savings Bond or T-bill profit. Or maybe it was a "you pay mine, and I pay yours" situation. Then to add insult to injury the government taxes us for the privilege, at the time we cash the bonds in. (what a rip-off.)

Because our income tax is used to pay the interest on the national debt, and savings bonds are part of that debt, I wonder if I really made any gain at all for that investment, I would have to say, no. And then to be taxed on a gain that is financially just a illusion, damn.
I have concluded that investing in government bonds is playing a rigged game, (rigged against me, and you also.) And also having since concluded that if I oppose the Government running up the federal debt, then it is a mistake for me to add to it, by allowing the government to borrow money from me, which is what buying bonds is. Also, I do not believe that any tax payer should have been required to pay for the interest payment that I received from those bonds that I had purchased so many years ago. It's bad enough that we get screwed by the Government, we do not have to screw each other as well.
For these reasons I will make the reader this promise:
I will never again purchase any form of Government bond: T-bill, saving bonds, etc., etc. And I will avoid any private investment system that uses federal securities as its investment strategy. thus lowering your tax burden by A very very very small amount. (what do you expect, I'm only one guy.)

It's a funny thing, I feel more patriotic now than when I was buying the bonds. Since the debt drives up taxation and taxation is a determent to our right for the pursuit of happiness as called out in the declaration of independence.

You, of course must do as you see fit with this issue.

Speaking of taxation.

No Taxation, Without Representation.

If you remember your American history, (I hope that I do), you will recognize that political slogan as originating from just prior to the creation of the Declaration Of Independence. Its meaning refers to the fact that the British subjects in the American colonies were not represented in Parliament. The colonies were under control of the British monarchy. Of course, with the Articles Of Confederation and later, the Constitution we have corrected that basic problem. Now all American citizens have three elected politicians representing their interests in the U. S. Congress, or as I believe the Constitution puts it, we have equal representation under the law.
Or do we?
Any politician who believes in a socialist philosophy, (i. e. Anyone who thinks social programs are just and proper), must by default, exercise the powers of his office in order to create and further that liberal mandate euphemistically posed as "the redistribution of wealth". He must make the bold assumption that you as a tax payer do not deserve the money that you have earned, and that somebody else, in fact does deserve the money that you have earned.
Whether he realizes it or not, he must divide his constituents into two groups:
The first, those who will receive the benefits of social programs.
The second, those who will carry the burden to pay for such programs.
In other words, he determines who gets help, and who gets hurt by the federal government. As I stated in the original Rock Report, before the Government can help anybody, it must first harm somebody else. How can anybody construe this as equal representation?
For my opinion, there can not be equal representation from an politician so inclined. No mater how much a politician makes denial he can not escape the fact that social spending grants certain rights to one group of his constituents while denying other rights for the rest. Of course this doesn't bother said politician because such a politician's priorities are centered around socialism (i. e. The redistribution of wealth), so equal representation would not be, and can not be his primary consideration. Speaking of socialism.

How to trap a society into a political/social system without really trying.
Or variations of "The Hook".

"The Hook," for this text, refers to a method used by a con artist which utilizes the greed of his victim in order to entrap the victim into following through with what ever fraudulent scheme the con artist is employing. The conclusion of which leaves the victim relieved of most (or all) of this cash.

If the American electorate assumes that social programs are beneficial to our society, then we will tend to vote into office politicians who will implement such programs, (will, and have done just that.) This has setup a never ending loop that is spinning off in several harmful directions:

"The Hook" version 1.0
The Democratic party has aligned itself with social programs, so in order for you to be a good Democratic party politician you are required to create new social programs during every term of office. This is necessary for the next election. You must have something to brag about during the campaign, you must be able show to your Democratic party electorate that you are continually working for the public good, (no matter the cost). You must show your vast compassionate nature. If you do not, then your democratic opponent in the primary elections will attack your political record. And you will appear to be either a "do nothing", or too conservative. And with that you will lose the primary election, and therefore your job, and all the trappings of power that go with it. And politicians do seem to like their jobs. Because of this social programs must, and have been, steadily increasing in their number. Keep in mind that the actual need for any additional social programs is irrelevant, if there are no issues to support the creation of additional programs, you must make up one out of the thin air, maybe something like "Universal Health Care". To do so isn't a big problem, there's always somebody out there willing to boldly ask what his country can do for him. Despite president Kennedy's suggestion to ask an alternate question.

Can any Democratic politician actively campaign, or vote for any reduction in any social program once it is established. I think not. If the reader has watched any C-SPAN during the 1995 votes on the items of the Contract With America, then you saw the Democratic Congress go ballistic at even the idea of controlling the growth of spending on social programs let alone reducing it.

"The Hook" version 2.0
In your opinion, how many of those on welfare would vote for someone who campaigns on welfare reductions. I for one would not say it will be zero percent, (common sense, and common decency crop up in the most surprising places), but it will be a very low percentage indeed. With so many people receiving money from so many programs, the Democratic party has in effect, locked in a certain percentage of votes of the American electorate in each election, because the Democrats are most associated with the creation and expansion of the social programs that so many people have grown dependent upon. Being locked into requiring money from the government, social program recipients have in concept sold their right to vote their true conscience. So, no matter how despicable the liberal candidate might be, the recipients have no choice in their ballot decision but to vote for him. Voting for somebody who holds any other opposing political philosophy will risk their government, (i.e. U. S. Tax payer) supplied existence. So in every election the liberal candidate will have a built in advantage. Obviously these purchased votes in our elections cannot, and do not reflect the true consensus of the American electorate, since some votes are cast solely to maintain the cash flow from the government. (regrettably this occurs in many forms, for many groups of U. S. Citizens, not just social spending recipients. This will be detailed in a future Rock Report.)

But wait, it gets worse.

"The Hook" version 2.1
For any other opposing party, there are not many ways to overcome the handicap created by social spending, except for that old saying, "if you can't beat'em, join'em" , so in-order by overcome the Democratic party's advantage, the opposition will have to engage in social spending of their own, even to the determent of their own campaign promises, like the one to balance the federal budget. As an example I offer , the 1998 federal budget compromise, and the spending needed for the new social programs contained within it. (what ever happened to the "it's the spending , stupid" buttons the Republicans were wearing back in 1993.)

If anybody wants to sell their right to vote their true mind, by signing up for these new programs, the line forms on your left. For my mind, giving up my right to vote freely is unthinkable, but, apparently not so, with other people. What, I wonder, would Thomas Jefferson have to say about this situation?

Disclaimer.
What I have just described in the paragraphs for "The Hook version 2.X" may not occur for anybody, (Liberals, Conservative, or the recipients), on a conscious level. They may, or may not realize that they are doing it, but it does in fact happen, even the most amateur study of human behavior points to the validity of this.

"The Hook" version 3.0
Perhaps you have watched the Sunday morning political news/interview programs on any of the three major networks. In particular when the liberal and conservative guests of these shows are debating reducing welfare or other social programs. This occurred almost every week during Congress's debate/vote on the items of the "Contract With America" during the first quarter of 1995. Regardless of any number of sound reasons for reducing social programs that the conservatives might claim. The Liberals will without hesitation implement "the hook", in these cases the hook is always the claim that any reduction ,no matter how small, will cause young mothers and their children to be tossed out onto the street, hungry and destitute. Whenever this version of the hook is used, the Conservative politician crumbles, because there are not politically acceptable answers to it. No mater the size of the national debt, no mater what high taxation does to this country, no mater what other problem may arise, this version of the hook will always be employed successfully by liberal politicians in the course of a debate, or discussion. When we assume that women and children will be harmed by the reduction or illumination of social programs, we lock ourselves in to a political philosophy that cannot be broken.

This begs the question, does reducing help constitute harm.
If the reader believes that lack of help equates to harm, then you (the reader) must be a truly despicable character. Because you have harmed that hitch hiker you passed the other day and did not stop to help. Or, that homeless person you saw last week is living in the streets because you did not provide a home for him. Or, maybe this year you could not afford to donate quit the same amount to your favorite charity as last year, and therefore have harmed those people who receive the benefits of that charity. Or, the kidney you did not donate renders you guilty of the death of someone who desperately needed a new one, said person being dead, because you chose not to help.

Or, perhaps, as I, you feel no guilt over other peoples problems when you do not in fact, cause them, and when "help", in what ever form is given, it is a gift, from you to another person. Given when you deem it proper and to the degree that you believe appropriate. And as a gift should never be expected or demanded of you, or anybody else. When an act of compassion is legally required, it is no longer an act of compassion, it becomes more like an act of extortion.

"The Hook" version 3.1
It's the same as version 3.0 except in place of "women and children" read, "the elderly" and in place of "Welfare" read, "Social Security".

Claimer. (opposite of a disclaimer)
What I have just described in the paragraphs for "The Hook version 3.X" most certainly does occur for the Liberal on a conscious level. They know what their doing and why they're doing it.
Speaking of compassion.

The Compassion of Congress.

I'll make an assumption that most politicians in Washington believe themselves to be basically compassionate. I do not mean in an excessive egotistical way, rather just the average feeling we all have about our own personalities. They, no doubt, get a good feeling from voting in some form of social legislation, that in their minds will be helpful to somebody. But is it truly an act of compassion to stand on the floor of the Senate, or the House, and bravely vote to spend other people's money? I do not think so. How many of you would take pride in spending your neighbors money in order to exercise your own compassion? (answer: everyone who proudly calls himself/herself a liberal.)
Three points amplify my views on the compassion of Congress:
First:
Until just two years ago Congress had a nasty habit of excluding themselves from having to obey laws that they passed for you and I. Surly and act of incredible arrogance and self interest, two traits that you seldom associate with compassion. This practice was halted by the Republican party in their first day as the majority party in Congress.
Second;
Repeated Congressional pay raises, often supported freely by both parties. Some people might call that greedy, (me, for one.) Again, a trait not usually associate with compassion.
Third:
(warning: some bold assumptions ahead.)
I believe it's safe to assume that most politicians in federal office are reasonable well off, financially speaking. Let's assume that each of their individual income tax forms are completely legitimate, (a very bold assumption indeed).
Can we assume that they itemize?
Can we assume that they take every available write off and deduction?
Can we assume that they, after making a personal sacrifice of a charitable contribution, then rescind that sacrifice in part or in whole by using it as a tax deduction? In effect transferring that sacrifice to the government and from themselves. A technique that puts in doubt our own compassion as well.
Can we assume that they use every possible tool in order to minimize their tax payment to its minimum?
Can we assume that, like all good Americans they do not like paying taxes?
Yes, "good Americans", in my opinion their aversion to taxation does make them all good Americans, because this country began over the issue of taxation and excessive government control.
However, their willingness to exercise in the redistribution of our wealth, while protecting their own wealth to the maximum extent possible, is hypocrisy in the extreme. If they truly believed that such social programs were a benefit and they were of a compassionate nature shouldn't they favor themselves paying even greater taxes?
Would you associate hypocrisy with compassion?
Social spending an act of compassion? No, just an act of Congress.

Conclusion

Another slogan from our early history was; "Dollars for charity, but not one red cent for tribute."
The definition of "Tribute" in this case being, "money or valuables given by a ruler or nation to another in submission or as a price for protection" (Webster's II new revised dictionary.)
Of course, this could not now apply to the American tax payer and social program spending. Or could it? There are, I am sure many reasons why the two are completely different, but personally, I can't think of any.

Submitted for your review by.
Mr. Eric (Rock) Andersen

Main

THE ROCK REPORT.

THE SON OF THE ROCK REPORT.

THE CURSE OF THE ROCK REPORT.

THE ROCK REPORT OF THE DAMNED.

THE ROCK REPORT OF THE SIERRA MADRE.

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE ROCK REPORT.

THE EARTH VERSUS THE ROCK REPORT.

IT CAME FROM THE ROCK REPORT.

THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW ROCK REPORT.

THE THING FROM ANOTHER ROCK REPORT.

20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE ROCK REPORT.