The Ground Zero Mosque

Much has been made in recent days about the proposed mosque some two blocks from Ground Zero (The site of the September, 11^th attacks).  The proposal by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has struck a chord with the American public.  And rightfully so!  However, we must be certain that it is striking the right chord.

Now, it must be said that there is sufficient room for debate on the relativity of religious freedom these days.  And it may be pointed out also that the congregation and leadership of the Orthodox Church building that was destroyed on September 11^th have been caught up in the mire of bureaucratic      red tape.  And those who seem to be running to defend the right of Imam Rauf to construct his mosque haven’t said or done much to aid this church.  But I digress!  Much of the media, talking heads and politicians have spoken at length about the constitutionality of the situation.  This in my mind is somewhat surprising because scarcely anyone talks about the constitution nowadays, especially on the left, and it was likely quite a chore to find their respective copies or send an aid to buy a new one. But in reality this isn’t a question of whether the proposed mosque is constitutional!  To me that particular topic is meant only to mislead the public. 

As far as I am concerned the Imam has every right to build his mosque anywhere he desires provided that it meat the zoning codes and all the rest.  There is no legal issue at play here and no room for there to be any legal hindrance of the mosque.  Now before you go all crazy on me and start talking about the funding the intent and all of that, hear me out.  I am simply saying the government does not have a dog in this fight, at least for the present.  It is true that if we do indeed discover that funds linked to terrorist’s organizations or other entities that support them are being used to build this mosque then this becomes a different issue entirely.  However, while we are on the subject, the fact that the US State department is paying at least part of the expenses for Imam  Rauf to travel to the middle east to “foster ‘greater understanding’ about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States” is somewhat constitutional questionable.(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/)

What is at issue here is propriety.  If, as the Imam has said, the purpose of this mosque and cultural center is to build bridges and promote cultural diversity, then forcing the proposed mosque on a people who do not want it seems a strange way to go about encouraging peace and brotherhood.  For instance, if I wanted to do something for a friend to help them out in some way, but they vehemently reject my offer, then it doesn’t help the situation if I force them to take it against their will.  This in my mind is where the true debate lies.

We must look at the history and the possibility of more sinister motives behind the mosque.  Historically Muslims have had a long standing tradition of building mosques on sacred or important sights of those whom they have conquered. (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-on-sacred-sites-of-defeated-enemies)  The very name of the proposed Mosque, the “Cordoba House” suggests this.  After the Muslim conquest of Spain in 784 they destroyed a Visigoth Church and erected the Great Mosque or Mezquita.  Of course we are all aware of the Dome of the Rock which was built over the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.  There are many other occurrences of this sort throughout history.  And even though this idea may have nothing to do with Imam Rauf’s proposed mosque it will certainly be seen by many of the “Radical Muslims” as a symbol of victory.  They see themselves at war with the west, with the infidel (that’s me, and likely you).  Having a shinny new multi million dollar mosque near ground zero would mark the spot of their greatest triumph over the west thus far.

Yet the government has very little authority to stop this mosque from being built on the grounds of propriety, and neither do we.  At best we could attempt to persuade the Imam to consider another location, but such attempts so far have proved unsuccessful.  In my opinion the proposed mosque will move forward and be built.  So what then?  Well in either case we must have our eyes open.  We need to be aware of why it is that Imam Rauf is so determined to build the mosque on the site near the place where Muslim terrorist killed nearly 3000 innocent people especially when the vast majority of the people he is trying to reach out to appose the mosque.  What is the real intent and purpose for the mosque?  These questions are but a part of much larger questions about Islam in America (a topic for another time).  We must move forward with our eyes opened in this whatever the outcome of this particular case may be. 

To Caesar what is Caesar's

Taxes, it has ever been the bane of the American people.  This was true even before the American people were the American people.  Though it was not solely the catalyst for the American Revolution, it did play a major part in our breaking with the Brits.  Taxes are as certain as death it is said.  Indeed, in a manner of perspective, they are more certain than death.  But what is the effect that a government’s policy on Tax on the public and ultimately itself?

Well here’s the rub.  Higher taxes do not equal higher revenue for the government.  Sounds odd right?  Well think about it this way.  This is a diagram of a basic economic principle. 

What is shown here can pretty much be found in any elementary Economics textbook.  There is an optimum price, and X marks the spot, in this case.  Deviation from this point reduces revenue either by having too few buyers at a cost to make the optimum or having too low of a cost for the buyers to make the optimum.  The optimum point for revenue is where the price is set to maintain the most buyers, and therefore the highest revenue.  Basically this shows that raising prices doesn’t always increase yield of cost.  This works with taxes as well "lower taxes."  That is, by raising taxes you do not necessarily create higher revenue, nor does a lower tax mean lower revenue.  In fact, historically, the opposite is true.  President Ragan new this, even the Democrat of Democrats John F. Kennedy knew this.  Both were aware that lowering taxes, not only generated greater revenues for the government, but that it also stimulated a stalling economy, and their policies reflected this during times of economic woes, which are certain to come  And they are certain to go if the markets are allowed to regulate themselves.

Yet in the midst of what President Obama has dubbed “the worst economic crisis since the great depression, a point that I might point out isn’t historically accurate either, the present administration sees fit to tax everything and everybody in sight?  For instance, when my company health insurance begins next month it will be a pre-tax payment.  That is I will pay my portion of the insurance before taxes are taken out.  At the beginning of next year, due to the wonderful healthcare legislation provided by Obama, Pelosi and Reed, it will be taxable.  In essence I am paying more for healthcare because a plan that was supposed to help with the cost of healthcare, and have less money in my pay-check.   But that is just me.  With the pending expiration of the “Bush” tax cuts, taxes will go up on Individual income tax, capital gains taxes, dividends and estate taxes generally speaking. 

This situation is a lot like burning the candle at both ends.  Besides the fact that some 47% of Americans do not pay taxes, and many of them received Tax credits from the IRS, there is a serious problem here "tax Credits".  While, however, the top 5% of earners account for around 60% of the tax revenue "tax the rich".  Now you might say, so what, they make more money they should pay more taxes.  Well fair enough.  But keep in mind that, though the top %5 percent of earners includes Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, many movie stars musicians and so on.  It also includes relatively small successful business owners making around 200k per year.  It is these that feel the greatest pinch when they a lumped together with the former.  On the individual side, if a person’s taxes increase, he or she will have less money to spend and likely be more tightly fisted with what they do have.  They buy fewer products, which decreases demand, lowers production quotas and profits for companies, who now have to lay people off to accommodate for falling profit margins.  Now there are less employed people to pay any income taxes that are now drawing unemployment!  Might we say “trickle up poverty?”  We have seen this in Europe where there are high income taxes and Value Added Taxes (VAT).  All this to support ever increasing entitlement programs, but that is a topic for another day.  On the other end you have the small business owner and the “wealthy elite.”  The small business owner has to pay more in taxes.  I know for a fact that a couple of self employed friends of mine have a nearly 30% tax on there business at present.  With the higher taxes there is less money for them to put towards growing there business, hiring new people etc.  The economy stagnates and we go the way of Greece. 

Alternatively, as History has shown, lowering taxes stimulates real grown.  Not the artificial kind that we saw with the New Home Buyers tax credit, Cash for Clunkers and other such programs that caused a momentary spike in the sales of their respective products.  No, real economic growth does not come from government meddling.  The government is the problem not the solution.  With lower taxes individuals have more money to spend, which they typically do.  The wealthier among us use this money to invest in the markets, business ventures, research, or their own small business.  All of which has been the cause for the vibrant, innovative and cutting edge economy that America is known for.  The answer is not the government placing higher regulations and taxes on those who truly support the economy and create jobs.  What the government needs to do is get out of the way, leave consumers and small business alone, and let them do what they do.

So we return to the question of why.  Well there are a few options I suppose.  One is simple ignorance.  Though this is somewhat of an amusing thought, it is likely not the case on most counts.  I find it hard to believe that so many individuals who have been elected can be ignorant of both basic economic principles and historical facts.  So that leaves us with two other options.    That is on the one hand, that they, that is that the Liberals, really truly believe that the government can solve these issues, this is called “statism.”  They seem to think that if they just throw enough money at a problem, then they can fix it.  So they create more bureaucracy, with more entitlement programs which cost more money and so on.  For my part it seems almost laughable that anyone with and mind for history could seriously entertain such notions for longer than a second or two considering that it has never worked.  The last and scariest possibility is that they aren’t ignorant, nor do they truly believe that big government is the answer.  But rather, it is a malevolent agenda to purposely retard the economy brining as many people under entitlement programs as possible that their hold over the government would likely see no end for a long time.  Though I have my own ideas about this to be sure, this, of course, is not my call to make.   

---

[1] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/

[3] http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners