A Finger in the Dyke

In thinking about the amazing victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, it makes me think about the little Dutch boy with his finger in the Dyke...but which side is the boy on?

For the Republicans, Brown's election in one of the bluest of blue states was a near miracle.  The last Republican Senator from Massachusetts was over 30 years ago. While this was a great victory, it is only one battle.  In this case, the Republicans have a chance to plug the big-government health care hole...but it is just a plug.  The Democrats still have a commanding majority in both houses of the Congress and hold the White House.  So while this was a victory, it was only one small battle in the political war for control and the future of the country.  So Republicans can celebrate...but not for too long, there is much yet to be done.

For the Democrats, the Brown win is quite problematic.  In an election that was supposed to be a walk-away sleeper, they were confronted with an electorate who were energized against their candidate and their policies.  They are left with a hole in their dyke that began with the Republican wins in the governor races of Virginia and New Jersey and have continued to grow with the Brown win.  Now the Democrats are desperately trying to plug the hole by downplaying the significance of the wins.  They are trying to say that the anger is unfocused and that it really stems from dissatisfaction with incumbents and the way things have been done for the last eight years.

But will it be enough to keep the dyke from bursting in the mid-term elections in November?  Current polling shows that incumbent Democrats are in trouble all across the country.  President Obama's approval numbers are hovering under 50% after only a year in office and the Democrat controlled Congress is showing approval numbers of only 26%.

So which side will be the most effective in stemming the tide, of holding back the waters?  That remains to be seen.  The Republicans need to begin showing some real leadership.  Their job is not complete.  The Democrats only hope may be to moderate their stances, like President Clinton did after his first mid-term election cycle.  Either way, the real story is that the American people have woken from their long slumber.  They are seeing that how The People's business is conducted really does matter.  That may be the biggest  lesson...The will of The People cannot be dammed up indefinitely.

Obama's Hatian Relief Efforts

Apparently there is disagreement and frustration about how the U. S. is handling the relief efforts in Haiti.  There is a lot of complaining that the aid is not quick enough.  Six days after the magnitude 7 earthquake that devastated the impoverished island nation, most are still without adequate food, water and other basic essentials.   French minister Alain Joyandet has even accused America of moving in an occupation force that is actually hampering the delivery of aid.

How can this be?  I thought the Democrats were in charge now.  This isn't the "stupid" Bush administration any more, this is Obama's America, we're talking about.  Can the President really be that inept that he can't even handle a little crisis like an earthquake?  Is it President Obama's fault that there are still thousands in need...and even dying?   The answer is NO!  And it wasn't President Bush's fault that aid wasn't immediate after hurricane Katrina either.

A relief effort like this is a massive undertaking.  Just getting the supplies and personnel mobilized can take days.  Getting all of that into an area where the infrastructure has been destroyed compounds the problems.  Then factor in the politics involved.  In Haiti, The United States has had to defer to the United Nations.  Pajamas Media reported that "the U.S. distributed all the supplies they’d brought and the UN refused to release more, apparently not wanting the U.S. to get the credit. The U.S. deferred to the UN rather than become an occupying force, the UN deferred to the Haitian government, and the Haitian government was largely nowhere to be found."  What is a well meaning President to do?

These problems are no different, really, than those encountered during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.  Even the politics.  The laws of the United States say that State governments have to take lead in these types of circumstances and ask the federal government to come in.  This is in an effort to keep the federal powers from usurping a State's powers.  Louisiana's governor completely dropped the ball.   Infrastructure was also damaged which made relief efforts all the more difficult.  But, none of this mattered to the Democrats and their sycophants in the media who politicized the disaster and demonized President Bush as an inept bigot, or worse.  President Bush was even accused of blowing up the levees in order to kill blacks in New Orleans.

In times of disaster, we all need to come together, eliminate the politics, and set about the task of saving lives.  Will mistakes be made?  Yes, most certainly.  We are all humans and imperfect.  We must adjust quickly during the event, review what went right and wrong after the event, and learn from our mistakes.  We should also understand that we will be criticized by other countries.  That's why we need to stick together as Americans.

My heart goes out to the people of Haiti.  And I applaud President Obama's efforts to provide quick relief.  Let's all keep in mind that natural disaster knows no political parties, no race, and no boundaries.  Let's all back the efforts being made and keep the politics out of it.

Gambling on Pennsylvania's Future

On Thursday, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania signed a bill into law that legalizes poker, black jack and other "table games" in Pennsylvania's licensed casinos.  Rendell said that he had misgivings about the bill because it was "laden with WAMs and pork," but he signed it because the commonwealth's budget was in jeopardy without the additional tax revenue.  The Governor said, "That's not a good way to run a railroad."  I don't know about a railroad, but it's certainly no way to run a state.

For years now we have been hearing how if we just had riverboat gambling in Pittsburgh, it would save the local economy.  If we just get slots it will save the state economy.  And all the while, business and industry have been fleeing the state and population growth has stagnated to the point where Pennsylvania is among eight states expected to lose one congressional district after the 2010 census.  Gambling revenues are a band-aid, at best.

What Pennsylvanians really need is leadership that understands that long-term prosperity is not tied to gambling, but to industry and manufacturing.  These are where the good jobs are...not in casinos and slot parlors.  What will be next, legalized houses of prostitution, like in Nevada?

Let's face it, the way Pennsylvania has been run for the past several decades has gotten us where we are now...budget shortfalls, deteriorating infrastructure and declining labor market.  What Pennsylvania really needs is lower taxes and reduced government interference to draw business back.  We need to provide incentives for manufacturing and high-tech firms that are not just temporary, but permanent.  We have seen that the temporary incentives bring temporary business.  When the incentives run out, so does the business...right out of the state.  With an improved business environment everyone wins; the citizens have a robust labor market, and the state has a growing tax base with increased revenue to the budget. If you don't think it works, take a look at Texas.

So, gambling or no gambling...table games or not...this is not the solution.  This is why it is more important than ever to pay attention to your state and local elections.  All that money going to Harrisburg, and this is the best idea they've got.  Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

The Utility of Federalism

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a Federal, and not a National constitution." - James Madison, "Federalist 39"

The United States of America was conceived and founded as a federation of sovereign States...not as a single, indivisible nation.  A Federal government was established, through the consent of the States, essentially to provide for the common defense, establish a common currency, represent the federation in international affairs, and to moderate disagreements and regulate trade between States.  It also established a minimum number of rights to be enjoyed by all citizens of the federation.  The Federal government was limited to very few, carefully enumerated powers.  It was never meant to be the supreme power of the federation, nor was it meant to be the great provider.  I wrote of the Balance of Power designed into our government in a previous post.

There are some very important practical utilities to a federal form of government.  The first and most important is decentralization of power.  It is a well known adage that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  The founders knew this all too well as they struggled for freedom from the corrupt and tyrannical rule of King George of England. They knew, as James Madison said, "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."  Therefore, they designed the government with checks and balances between branches of the Federal government and between the Federal government and the States. All of this in an attempt to avoid the kind of tyranny they had just rebelled against.  If supreme power rests in the Federal government and the States are subordinate, then  the checks and balances fail...it is then only the Federal government left to regulate itself.

The founders believed that decisions made which most directly effect our lives should be made in local governments that were closest to us.  Thomas Jefferson said, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best].  Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself.  It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."  He further notes, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate."

Another utility of federalism is mobility.  That is the ability of citizens to move from one state where they may not be happy with how things are done, to another state that more suits their lifestyle or beliefs.  Federalism allows States, which are diverse in geography, resources and populations, to adopt policies that best meet the needs and desires of their citizens.  As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once wrote, "A single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  If a State's citizens are inclined toward socialism, that state can adopt socialist policies like universal health care, welfare and wage controls.  A State who wants capitalism can adopt lower taxes, right to work and limited government.  And, citizens from other States, in the federation, are free to move to either of these states.  Other States can see the successes and failure of these states and adopt or reject their policies as they see fit.  If a policy works in one State, it is likely, but not certain, to work in other states...the same goes with failures.

This mobility is in effect today to a certain extent.  Citizens of New York state, for example, who are tired of excessive personal income and other taxes, are moving to states like Florida and Nevada where there are no personal income taxes.  States with high corporate taxes and excessive regulation are losing industry to other states which provide a more advantageous business environment.  This is how it is suppose to work.  It is also the same with social issues. If you are against the death penalty...move to New Jersey.  If you're for it, move to Texas.

The problem today is that States with failed policies, who are not willing to accept their failures, appeal to the Federal government for relief.  They demand that taxes and resources from other states be used to prop up their policies.  Or, to avoid a mass exodus, they want the Federal government to enact regulations that would "level the playing field."  Failing states are not allowed to fail.  As the Federal government amasses more and more power unto itself, there is less and less distinction between the states.  And, in reinforcing failure and discouraging success, all citizens of the United States are denied the benefits of federalism.

For decades the Federal government has been incrementally overstepping its constitutional bounds and usurping the powers of the States.  In recent years factions of our own government has begun an attempt to cede national sovereignty to international bodies like the U. N.  This will take control even further from The People.  This trend must be stopped and reversed.  State sovereignty must be restored to regain the proper balance of power in the United States.  States must be allowed to fail or succeed, with no intervention from the Federal government.  If this is the case, then our State representatives and governors will be much more careful in their administration of State affairs.  The 17th Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed, making U. S. Senators the true representatives of the States again.  The Federal government is far too large, bloated and corrupt to enact any of these changes.  They will not willingly give up power.  This must come from the grass roots and be done through the States.  Some States have already begun to look at nullification legislation for federal laws or policies where the Federal government oversteps their constitutional bounds, but much more must be done.  We must begin to elect local and State representatives who will uphold and restore the principles on which this country was founded. 


"If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when self government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of counties of England -- on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired." - Historian John Fiske,from "The Historical Writings of John Fiske" vol. 12.  1916.