Now that the ‘Pubs control the House, what should be done?

The question in the title was the subject on the radio this morning. It was a loaded question and the “usual suspects” called in. Overall, the response was the same—cut spending! Just where would those cuts occur? Ah, that’s is the question.

There were the usual idiots claiming that we need a national consumption tax and that “will eliminate the IRS.” Well, that’s a subject for another post. Just let me say, eliminating the IRS ain’t gonna happen. As for the national consumption tax? That’s about the worse thing that could happen aside from raising taxes. Usually these idiots just parrot what they’ve heard from others and have never stopped to think just what would happen with a national consumption tax. Hint: Unintended Consequences.

Others want to eliminate entitlements. Now, that is something we can look into but repealing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security can’t be done by fiat. Much we dislike these entitlements there are many who, in one form or another, depend on these entitlements for their lives.

But there is room here for us to work. As for the “Medis”, Medicare and Medicaid, those can be privatized or turned back to the states. Many states, Missouri for example, has a good track record working with Medicaid. Medicare? That can be privatized, but not overnight. There has to be a transition to allow private insurance carriers to take over this function. There are some obstacles that must be removed to allow for privatization and do so that allows the providers a profit.

Those who currently have Social Security must have some alternative. It’s too late for them to save enough or choose alternate means for retirement income. True, they’ve been sold a ponzi scheme. However, that scheme was perpetrated by the federal government and it’s the responsibility of that government (and us unfortunately) to support that agreement for those who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare. However that does not mean that we can’t phase Social Security out. True, it will take decades but it can be done.


For instance, let me throw this out. Those who’ve paid into Social Security and are over the age of fifty, have the choice to remain in the system or to withdraw and shift their contributions into a private plan, perhaps something like 401Ks. Next, there would be no Social Security if you’ve never paid into the system or if you are an illegal alien. Those under the age of fifty would have their funds transferred into a private plan. A surcharge on the growth of those private plans would help fund Social Security for those remaining in the system. The feds would have to pick up the rest, but that funding would drop year-over-year as those in the system died.

Harsh? Perhaps, but it would support those already in Social Security and would also allow that ponzi scheme to fad away while providing retirement funds for those who’ve yet to retire. Eventually those entitlements would fade away.

Where else can we cut? Well, for one thing, let’s make it absolutely ILLEGAL for the federal government to EVER bailout another company. Business, like societies, must live by Darwin’s rules. Darwin is the ultimate leveler and his rules apply to business, governments, societies and cultures just as it applies to species. Someone said, “The business of America is business.” I don’t remember who said that but it is a truism. The business of government IS NOT business but eliminating those obstacles that interfere with business. For most of this country’s existence, that interference has been government.

We must return Congress to the limits imposed on it in Section 1, Article 8 of the constitution known as the “enumerated” powers of Congress. Every piece of legislation, going forward, must cite where in the Constitution, Congress has the power to do what is proposed in that piece of legislation.

If there is ever a need to modify the constitution, it is to reword or remove the so-called “elastic” clause. John Marshall, as one of his first SCOTUS decisions, modified the intent of that clause negating the intent of the authors of the constitution. That clause was supposed to be limited in scope. May John Marshall’s name be ever held in infamy. John Marshall alone did more damage to to US constitution until the democrat controlled congress in 2006 and 2008.

Congress has assumed too much power. The balance between the states and the central government has been badly damaged—almost destroyed. This nation grew and prospered for over 100 years with a balance of powers. Teddy Roosevelt was the first to tilt that balance towards the federal government with his prolific use of Executive Orders. William Howard Taft, a Roosevelt protege, pushed that balance further with the passage of the 16th Amendment and Woodrow Wilson with the passage of the17th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Now that the ‘Pubs have regained control of the House, how much can they do to put us back on the path envisioned by the founders? I expect it will be less than we want. But, perhaps, they can start the snowball that will grow and gain strength.

We’ll wait and see. If they don’t, 2012 is only two years away and the Tea Party just may become a major player and the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs.

Repeal Amendment?

I’ve heard about this proposal, although not much. It’s an interesting concept for a go-around of Congress—something we’ve desperately needed these last four years. The proposal, basically, would be a constitutional amendment that would allow federal legislation to be repealed by 2/3s vote of the states.

Here is a writeup about the proposed amendment.

By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/20/constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-streamline-leglislative-repeals-to-hit-congress-soon/#ixzz162FohnH3

I’m always leery of any amendments to our Constitution. This one could be a 2-edged sword if the libs every gain control of enough statehouses. On the other hand, consider how much better off if we could have repealed TARP, the Stimulus Graft Bills I & II, the Dodd Banking Bill, and last but not least, Obamacare.

It’s about enough to make me change my stance.

Repeal Amendment?

I’ve heard about this proposal, although not much. It’s an interesting concept for a go-around of Congress—something we’ve desperately needed these last four years. The proposal, basically, would be a constitutional amendment that would allow federal legislation to be repealed by 2/3s vote of the states.

Here is a writeup about the proposed amendment.

By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/20/constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-streamline-leglislative-repeals-to-hit-congress-soon/#ixzz162FohnH3

I’m always leery of any amendments to our Constitution. This one could be a 2-edged sword if the libs every gain control of enough statehouses. On the other hand, consider how much better off if we could have repealed TARP, the Stimulus Graft Bills I & II, the Dodd Banking Bill, and last but not least, Obamacare.

It’s about enough to make me change my stance.

By the consent of the governed…

Charles Krauthammer has a column in today’s Investor’s Business Daily concerning the consent of the governed. Is it a thing of the past?

It has become obvious, since Obama’s Inauguration, that the current federal government is not operating by the consent of the governed. Polls in the recent months document that sentiment with 54% of the country saying congress is not acting with the nation’s consent. The approval rating of Congress is nearing single digits. Obama’s approval is heading for the 30s.

More proof occurred this week when a memo from Homeland Security was leaked how that department could bypass legislation and congress to effect immigration amnesty. Already that department and the justice department are guilty of misfeasance, if not malfeasance, by refusing to enforce immigration and other federal laws. Krauthammer adds some thoughts to this.

Is ‘Consent Of The Governed’ Thing Of Past?

Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Homeland Security Department suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency.
Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.
Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.
When questioned, the White House downplayed the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.

But immigration is not the only area where the FedGov is bypassing congress. The EPA is doing the same when it became apparent that ‘Cap ‘n Tax’ was not going to succeed.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted the Washington Post, sending “a message to Congress.”
It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation — taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy — or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding “is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving.”
Well, Congress didn’t. Despite the “regulatory cudgel” (to again quote the Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce. Good for the Senate. But what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so?

Krauthammer recounts how we reached this point. It began in the first days of the Obama administration.

How did we get here? I blame Henry Paulson. (Such a versatile sentence.) The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved the day he summoned the heads of the country’s nine largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied.
So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.
In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That’s bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress.
That’s called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people’s representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat.

I don’t always agree with everything Krauthammer writes. He too easily accepts the growth of big government. In this instance, however, he’s right on the mark.

By the consent of the governed…

Charles Krauthammer has a column in today’s Investor’s Business Daily concerning the consent of the governed. Is it a thing of the past?

It has become obvious, since Obama’s Inauguration, that the current federal government is not operating by the consent of the governed. Polls in the recent months document that sentiment with 54% of the country saying congress is not acting with the nation’s consent. The approval rating of Congress is nearing single digits. Obama’s approval is heading for the 30s.

More proof occurred this week when a memo from Homeland Security was leaked how that department could bypass legislation and congress to effect immigration amnesty. Already that department and the justice department are guilty of misfeasance, if not malfeasance, by refusing to enforce immigration and other federal laws. Krauthammer adds some thoughts to this.

Is ‘Consent Of The Governed’ Thing Of Past?

Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Homeland Security Department suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency.
Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.
Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.
When questioned, the White House downplayed the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.

But immigration is not the only area where the FedGov is bypassing congress. The EPA is doing the same when it became apparent that ‘Cap ‘n Tax’ was not going to succeed.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted the Washington Post, sending “a message to Congress.”
It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation — taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy — or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding “is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving.”
Well, Congress didn’t. Despite the “regulatory cudgel” (to again quote the Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce. Good for the Senate. But what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so?

Krauthammer recounts how we reached this point. It began in the first days of the Obama administration.

How did we get here? I blame Henry Paulson. (Such a versatile sentence.) The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved the day he summoned the heads of the country’s nine largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied.
So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.
In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That’s bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress.
That’s called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people’s representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat.

I don’t always agree with everything Krauthammer writes. He too easily accepts the growth of big government. In this instance, however, he’s right on the mark.

The 2nd American Revolution

The fears and warnings of conservative bloggers has now been repeated by a recognized news organization, The Investor’s Business Daily.  IBD usually reports on business and economic issues and it is NOT a liberal partner of the State Media.

Now those fears and warnings have been repeated by a news organization, not just some “right-wing wacko” preaching in the vast wasteland of fly-over country. 

IBD reported on Friday, July 30, 2010

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

Dire warning, indeed. The federal government’s shift towards leftist totalitarianism has become so obvious that it can no longer be ignored.  It has reached a point where…

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Investor’s Business Daily has some suggestions. First prune the power of the Imperial Presidency. With the solid opposition of the republican party and of the majority of the people, the democrats, after some initial successes, now have decided to govern by fiat.  When it became apparent that amnesty for illegals could not be supported in Congress, Janet Napolitano said that amnesty could be done through regulation and by-pass Congress.  That has already occurred by Obama’s extensive use of “Czars” and creating bureaus to put into effect policies that he could not get passed in Congress.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

There is much, much more in the editorial, “Will Washington’s Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?written by ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS. When you get to the website, go to the bottom of the article and click on “Full Page” to insure you don’t skip the last portion of the editorial.

Go read and think—then Remember, come November when you vote.

Respect

re·spect[ri-spekt] –noun

1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in ): to differ in some respect.

2. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.

3. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect’s right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.

4. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.

–verb (used with object)

5. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.

6. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone’s rights.

7. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person’s privacy.

There has been, and perhaps still remains to some extent, an unwritten contract between government and the people.  I almost wrote “governed” but that isn’t appropriate in the United States.  We are not governed as are those elsewhere.  Here government exists solely by the will of the people.  We are not governed because of that unwritten contract that says government is a partnership with the people.

The Preamble to the US Constitution begins with “We the people…” and gives legitimacy to the government created by that document. The contract is written in mutual respect.  It can only remain in effect while that mutual respect continues.

We have reached a point in the history of this country where that mutual respect has been damaged.  It is too soon to say whether the damage is irreparable.  The actions of the democrat lead Congress since they took control in 2006 has shown no respect to the people and has all too often ignored and acted against the interests of the people in order to affect an agenda that has been contrary to the wishes of the people.  The actions by democrats in the summer of 2009 and the creation of the Tea Party movement illustrate this divide and the loss of respect.  When democrats actively move to exclude a portion of the country from communicating their desires, when democrats denigerate their political opponents, the government does not show respect to those who they view as “the governed.”  That viewpoint is incorrect and perilous.

The democrat leadership, and unfortunately a number of republicans as well, has violated the contract.  When non-governmental agencies, such as SEIU, are used to intimidate members of the public, when racist groups such as the New Black Panther Party actively intimidate voters at the polls, and when the officers of the federal government refuse to act as required by law, that contract is further damaged. The actions by Att’y Gen’l Eric Holder in suing Arizona for daring to act to protect the national borders when the government refuses to do so, damages the contract.

With mutual respect there is trust.  The actions of the current government does not respect the people of this nation as shown above.  The people of this country, as illustrated by the actions of Virginia, Louisiana, Arizona, and probably Missouri after next Tuesday is proof that the people and the states are losing respect for the federal government.  With no respect, there is no trust and when trust is lost, recreating respect and trust is a long, difficult and dangerous road.

The contract must be re-formulated, perhaps this time in writing if this nation is to survive.  It may not do so in its current form.  Whether the “Great Experiment” as viewed by Alexi de Tocqueville continues is unknown. Another cogent quote from Walter Lippman says…

Walter Lippmann : In making the great experiment of governing people by consent rather than by coercion, it is not sufficient that the party in power should have a majority. It is just as necessary that the party in power should never outrage the minority.

We have already reached the point where the people are outraged.  We are close to the point where the majority of the people are enraged.  When that point is reached, the contract is broken, there is no trust and no respect by the people for government.
I pray we do not reach this point because the greatest danger is that the United States will no longer be united and with that, the Great Experiment ends.