The Obama administration just released its dire predictions for our economy: A $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, doubling of the national debt by 2019 and 10 percent unemployment this year. Obama’s economic advisor Christina Romer said, “This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter.”
Wow, the race toward collapsing the economy is even swifter than I could have ever imagined. President Obama has tried to place the blame on the previous administration, but President Bush does not have anything to do with the current spending and projected spending that is already projected to triple the deficit this year.
These projections will only come true if the Federal Government continues on its current path of unprecedented spending. With this news, it seems that President Obama either has no idea how to reverse this course or no intentions to do so. The former is ineptitude…the latter is just scary.
Why would Obama and the Democratic majority wish to continue down such a disastrous path? Why have they been so hell-bent to change the fundamentals of an economy that has provided more prosperity than any other in the history of the world? I think you need simply probe the past history and associations of Mr. Obama and many of the Democrats in congress. Obama has a long history of sitting under the tutelage of communists, including his father, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers (the domestic terrorist), and the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright to name a few. These people had a large influence on Obama as he formed his social/political philosophies. They were all either avowed communists or outspoken haters of America. It has been the standard mantra of communists for years that to “fix” what they see as wrong with America, they must first tear it down. This allows them to remake it according to their own ideology.
But, how can we really fix things? How do we move back from the edge of the abyss? The answer to that is simple, but does not allow the left the control they desire. The three steps to economic recovery are: lower taxes, decrease spending, and easing of regulatory control on business. Any one of these would have an immediate, positive impact on the economy.
Lowering taxes has had a positive economic impact every time it has been tried. This gives corporations more of their own money to spend on hiring and expanding, and gives individuals more disposable income to circulate through the economy. But, the Democrats say, we can’t afford this, the government has too many obligations. We can’t reduce our income to the government without jeopardizing vital public services. This, frankly, is a BIG LIE! Every time the Federal tax rate has been lowered in the last 50 years, income to the treasury has actually increased…First under Kennedy, then under Reagan and lastly under George W. Bush.
How can this be? How can I lower my cost and increase revenues? I don’t know, ask Wal-Mart. I know that this analogy is a bit simplistic, but not far from true. Simply put, as tax rates are lowered, more cash circulates through the economy and it grows…thus growing the tax base. Though the tax rate is lower, there is more money changing hands to be taxed. In a way, this is just like Wal-Mart…the lower their prices, the more people come and buy things, the more money they make. Of course, in Government, as with Wal-Mart, you can only lower costs so much before you reach a point of diminishing returns.
What we are currently seeing is the opposite effect. If you raise taxes, there is less money in the economy and thus a smaller tax base. The Democrats answer to this is raise taxes again. But what we are seeing now is that revenues at all levels of government, local, state and federal, are down. You can’t keep taking more and more taxes from a shrinking tax base and expect the economy to grow. Here too is a point of diminishing returns.
Decrease spending…this is self evident. Most of us have lived through this in our personal or business lives. When the income begins to shrink or prices raise, we must tighten our belts. Government is fond of telling us that we should do this…but seem totally unwilling to follow their own advice. As we all know there is fat and waste in almost any organization or budget that can be trimmed if needed. In the Federal government, the pork and waste is epic.
Easing regulations on corporations is also desperately needed. Many companies move operations off-shore not principally for cheaper labor, but to escape the huge regulatory burden placed on them in this country. Some regulation is good and needed. There is a time though when there is enough regulation, but like Congressmen who feel the need to keep turning out new laws, regulatory agencies feel the need to create new regulations to expand their influence and justify their existence. Depending on the industry, some companies need to hire armies of lawyers and other personnel just to track compliance.
So, does Obama really want to reverse the trend and move us toward a new prosperity? I don’t think so. He has shown no inclination to even consider the remedies above. What is his true agenda? I have my own fears about that, but whatever they are, he and the Democrats need to be stopped. They cannot continue to rush our country toward an economic collapse.
As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.) put it "The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren. If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Town Hall Protests: A Very American Tradition
“I am disappointed about the attempts to characterize the behavior of Americans expressing their concerns as ‘un-American'. Although I strongly encourage the use of respectful debate in these town halls, we should not be stifling these discussions. There is nothing ‘un-American’ about disagreements. In fact, our great nation was founded on speaking our minds.” - Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah)
America was indeed founded by people who had a very profound distrust of centralized, concentrated power. The first attempt at a Federal government under the Articles of Confederation actually erred toward the side of being too de-centralized. The drafting of the Constitution was an acknowledgement that there had to be some level of centralization to provide for the proper operation of a nation. The Founders, however, were very careful to limit this government to just a very few enumerated powers.
In our form of government, a Representative Republic, the government derives all of its power, either directly or indirectly, from “The People.” The People have not only the right to disagree and protest the government when they are not happy with its direction, but an obligation to do so. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she was still a Senator, seemed to have agreed with this point of view when she said, “I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Of course she was talking about the Bush administration at the time, but the principle is the same.
When The Peoples’ representatives are not hearing or paying attention to their concerns, they have the right to become adamant that their voice is heard. This type of public discourse and basic distrust of government power is in the tradition of our great country. It is, in a very real way, American.
Let’s contrast this with forms of government that have very powerful and centralized governments. These governments almost never allow disagreement or public opposition. These governments denounce protest as unpatriotic…or worse, treasonous. They have large propaganda machines that always promote the party line and encourage turning in unpatriotic detractors to the authorities. In modern times, these countries have been totalitarian communist or socialist regimes.
Debate is healthy. Public discourse is necessary to maintain the freedoms for which many have given their blood and lives. Those who rail against the town hall protestors and Tea Parties, who call them un-American, are themselves acting against the traditions of this country. They align themselves more with traditions of counties like the USSR and Nazi Germany in trying to shut-up the opposition…they are the ones who are acting un-American.
We should not confuse the protests against the current health care legislation with a desire to maintain the status quo. Many who do not want to see the government control health care, still believe that tort reform, controlling the access of illegal aliens, and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines are needed reforms that can help. But many would rather do nothing than to give over healthcare to government bureaucrats whom they do not trust.
Myself, I agree with Hillary Clinton… " We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
America was indeed founded by people who had a very profound distrust of centralized, concentrated power. The first attempt at a Federal government under the Articles of Confederation actually erred toward the side of being too de-centralized. The drafting of the Constitution was an acknowledgement that there had to be some level of centralization to provide for the proper operation of a nation. The Founders, however, were very careful to limit this government to just a very few enumerated powers.
In our form of government, a Representative Republic, the government derives all of its power, either directly or indirectly, from “The People.” The People have not only the right to disagree and protest the government when they are not happy with its direction, but an obligation to do so. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she was still a Senator, seemed to have agreed with this point of view when she said, “I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Of course she was talking about the Bush administration at the time, but the principle is the same.
When The Peoples’ representatives are not hearing or paying attention to their concerns, they have the right to become adamant that their voice is heard. This type of public discourse and basic distrust of government power is in the tradition of our great country. It is, in a very real way, American.
Let’s contrast this with forms of government that have very powerful and centralized governments. These governments almost never allow disagreement or public opposition. These governments denounce protest as unpatriotic…or worse, treasonous. They have large propaganda machines that always promote the party line and encourage turning in unpatriotic detractors to the authorities. In modern times, these countries have been totalitarian communist or socialist regimes.
Debate is healthy. Public discourse is necessary to maintain the freedoms for which many have given their blood and lives. Those who rail against the town hall protestors and Tea Parties, who call them un-American, are themselves acting against the traditions of this country. They align themselves more with traditions of counties like the USSR and Nazi Germany in trying to shut-up the opposition…they are the ones who are acting un-American.
We should not confuse the protests against the current health care legislation with a desire to maintain the status quo. Many who do not want to see the government control health care, still believe that tort reform, controlling the access of illegal aliens, and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines are needed reforms that can help. But many would rather do nothing than to give over healthcare to government bureaucrats whom they do not trust.
Myself, I agree with Hillary Clinton… " We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Monday, August 3, 2009
Balance of Power
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 45
With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.
In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.
The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.
The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.
When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.
“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.
The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.
In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.
In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.
Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.
“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.
Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.
I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:
“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”
With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.
In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.
The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.
The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.
When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.
“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.
The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.
In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.
In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.
Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.
“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.
Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.
I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:
“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)