Default is Last Resort...Not First!

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." from Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

Believing that not raising the debt ceiling equals default means that you must believe that every penny the government is now spending is absolutely necessary...that not one penny can be cut.  The 14th Amendment spells out that the legally incurred debt of the United States cannot be questioned...in other words, it is a debt and must be paid.  Defaulting on debt, therefore is the last resort...after all other measures have been exhausted.  In this current "crisis," however, no other measures are being even considered or negotiated by our imperial dictator.

Before we default on debt, we should...must...cut other spending to the point where we can service our current debt.  We can reduce or eliminate discretionary spending.  We could eliminate departments of government that are inefficient, out-dated, corrupt, or unconstitutional...which is most of them.  We can stop maintaining national parks...national public radio.  We can pull out of the United Nations and eliminate that obligation.  We can eliminate federal funding for food stamps, welfare, and socialized medicine.  We can do very many other things that do not affect the rightful and constitutional operation of what is meant to be a very limited Federal government.  But we cannot constitutionally default on our debt.

If the President of the United States willfully defaults on our legal debt, he should be immediately removed from office and possibly imprisoned for breaking federal law.  If our Congress allows him to default, the States, from whom the Federal government gets it's power, must rise up and recall and replace them with those who will live up to the oath of defending the Constitution.

REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT!

ENFORCE THE 10th AMENDMENT!

Debt Limit and Default

President Obama is a liar and if HE CAUSES a default, he should immediately be removed from office. Representative Tom McClintock (R- CA) lays out the case that not only does failure to raise the debt limit not equal default, that it would have to be a conscience decision of the President, against the laws of the land, for the country to default.

We must destroy the Imperial Presidency in this country, along with the elitism of the Senate.  We must take back power to the States and the People and return these offices to their constitutionally proscribed limits.

REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT!

ENFORCE THE 10th AMENDMENT!

Obama Scandals: More of the Same?

With all of the scandals swirling around the Obama administration, I keep hearing apologists appeal to the fact that others have done it before.  "JFK, Nixon, Clinton all used the the IRS against their enemies,"  they say.  "Bush started the gun walking into Mexico first," is their cry. "It was the Patriot Act under George W. Bush that began all the surveillance of communications in the first place," they rightly point out.

"Yes," I say, "and that is exactly my point!"

To me, it doesn't matter which power grabbing statist abuses his power, and therefore tramples our rights.  The point is that THEY ALL DO IT! And, I would add, they all get progressively (pun intended) worse.  If President X gets away with such-and-so...President Y sees this as precedent which allows him to expand on the issue.  Then, President Z sees that there is no real resistance to this recently fabricated power and doubles-down.

This trend has continued, with very little interruption for the last 100 years or so.  It has gone on so long that the typical, government-educated citizen believes that it is normal...proper...inevitable.  A country, once heroically and uniquely founded on the principles of individual responsibility and a limited-power, republican government, now largely believes that nothing can be accomplished in this modern world without big government.

The fact that abuse and corruption have been done in the past does not excuse or legalize it.  The Constitution is very clear on the limits of power for the central government.  It is not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that are  failing us.  Our founding documents are based on timeless principles of human nature and the nature of power.  These principles are true, regardless of the technology of the day. It is The People who have failed to insist on maintaining their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. Too many are perfectly happy to allow "other people's" rights to be trampled when they don't agree with those people. For a recent example, consider gun rights. But these people are too ignorant...or brainwashed...or invested in their own dogma to understand that if the government can trample "other people's" rights, they can just as easily trample yours.

You cannot have a centralized, all-powerful, all-encompassing state without this kind of abuse.  Absolute power corrupts, absolutely! This is what we get when we look to government to solve all of our problems and provide for all our needs. When we turn our heads and ignore corruption and abuse, so long as we can suckle at the teat of mother government, we get the Nanny-State Overlords we must now endure. The founders knew this...even though they never foresaw cell-phones, e-mail or nuclear weapons.

“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 47.

This is why I believe the best government ever devised was the limited, decentralized form the founders gave us.  It is our only hope to avoid the erosion and eventual elimination of all of our rights.  And the only hope for the restoration of this form of government is for The People to wake from their 100-year slumber and insist that their government be run according to the law of the land, the Constitution.  We must truly hold those in office accountable for violations of their oaths to uphold this law.  And...we must be willing grow-up and stand on our own two feet without the constant aid of good ole' Uncle Sugar.

Informed Mistrust

Thanks to my friend Rich for sharing the video below.

I do not trust centralized power, and in this sentiment, I stand with the Founding Fathers who strove to define a small, limited and decentralized form of government for the United States of America.

The gun control issue is about far more than guns.  It is about whether a small group of hypocritical, ruling-elite totalitarians in Washington can nullify our basic rights at their own whim.  It is about whether we are a nation of laws, based on the bedrock of a Constitution, or are to be ruled by the "tyranny of the majority," swayed by every wind of populist frenzy which would see every "good crisis," real or manufactured, as a reason to usurp our rights.

The participation of legal gun owners in crime has been characterized, from the FBI crime statistics, as statistically insignificant.  Gun bans will make no one safer since criminals, by their nature, do not obey laws.  But, if these usurpers can in effect nullify our 10th Amendment rights, they can also nullify our 1st Amendment rights or any other they choose.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it:

The Nazis confiscated guns from the Jews.  The Soviets and the Red Chinese confiscated guns.

John Adams effectually nullified the 1st Amendment through the Sedition Act, imprisoning many.  Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of people for the crime of publicly disagreeing with him with no due process...you were probably never told about that.  FDR imprisoned thousands of AMERICAN CITIZENS of Japanese decent in internment camps.

No, I do not trust centralized power.  If you do, you ignore the whole of human history, and you do it at your peril and the peril of your posterity.  There are many, many examples of centralized power gone bad...and I would say none of it turning out well.  We have only lasted this long, because of the work of the founders, through the Constitution, and many others who fought to uphold it.  We are at a dangerous time, I fear...a time when too many are willing to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety."

So no, I do not trust them when they tell us that they don't want to take our guns.  I know from history, past and recent, that they do.

Traitors to Posterity?

Somebody should have read this to Nancy Pelosi when she was in such a hurry to pass Obamacare that she said, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” 

This comes from the John DeWitt Essay I of the Anti-Federalist Papers:

"But it ought to undergo a candid and strict examination. It is the duty of every one in the Commonwealth to communicate his sentiments to his neighbour, divested of passion, and equally so of prejudices. If they are honest and he is a real friend to his country, he will do it and embrace every opportunity to do it. If thoroughly looked into before it is adopted, the people will be more apt to approve of it in practice, and every man is a TRAITOR to himself and his posterity, who shall ratify it with his signature, without first endeavouring to understand it. -- We are but yet in infancy; and we had better proceed slow than too fast. -- It is much easier to dispense powers, then recall them."

Limited and Specific Powers

United States Constitution

Article I: Section 8. (The Enumerated Powers)

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

8.3 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

8.4 To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

8.5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

8.6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

8.7 To establish post offices and post roads;

8.8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

8.9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

8.10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

8.11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

8.13 To provide and maintain a navy;

8.14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

8.16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

8.17 To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

8.18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Amendment X:

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.

Debt Limit Looming...Again!

In July of 2011, I did a post with two videos arguing against raising the Federal debt ceiling.  Well, of course they did it...they raised the ceiling.  At that time, we were about to come up against a $14.2 trillion debt limit.  We were told we had to raise the debt ceiling or we would be in default...a lie.  Now, less than a year and a half later, Newsmax,com reports that, "The Obama administration said on Wednesday that the nation would hit the legal limit on its debt near the year's end..."  That's right, now the Central Spending Machine is only "$235 billion below the $16.4 trillion statutory ceiling on the amount it can borrow."  The Debt now exceeds the GDP of the entire country at just over $15 trillion.

In an October 2011 post, when we were a mere $14 trillion in debt, I tried to put the National Debt in Perspective.  In that post I said:

"In 2010, The US government spent more than $413 Billion on interest payments alone. This is more than was spent on The Department of Health and Human Services…The Departments of Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce…hold on, I’m almost done…The Department of Treasury, Department of Labor and the Small Business Administration …COMBINED. Just to service current debt. And, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the interest payments on the debt are projected to be $1.1 Trillion a year by 2021, a mere 10 years from now."

I also pointed out that then it would have taken 384 years to pay off the debt if government stopped spending any other money and just paid $100,000,000 a day on the debt.  That time frame has increased by 65 years to 449 years...in a year and a half.

Let me remind you that candidate Obama said of President Bush's addition of $4 trillion to the debt in eight years, "That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."  Which I agreed with.  Now Obama will have raised the debt by more than $6 trillion in four years.

The Debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the last decade, from $5.9 trillion to $16.4 trillion. And now, the Treasury is already calling for another hike, "As we saw last summer, it is important that the debt limit is raised in a timely manner," said Treasury Assistant Secretary Matthew Rutherford.  

Our credit rating has already fallen.  Our spending is out of control.  We cannot continue to raise the debt ceiling.  We cannot continue to pass results of the current government's irresponsibility down to our children, grandchildren ..and great, great grandchildren.  We need to take responsibility.  We need people who do not allow their votes to be bought with government hand-outs.  We need serious adult leadership in government.  We need to reduce the size and scope of government...and we can't put it off.

Retire the Debt Overnight?

For another way to look at the Federal debt, I thought it would be helpful to do a little thought experiment:

If the Federal debt of $16.2 Trillion were divided among all Americans, each of our more than 314 million citizens would owe in excess of  $51,000 to retire it.  Let's say that there was a way, through great effort and sacrifice by all of the patriotic people of the country, to collect this amount from every citizen and retire the debt ...maybe some would pay more than others...corporations would also contribute.  What if we could do this and erase the debt overnight?  Would you be in favor of this?

Think about it, all the problems that arise from such a large debt that I and others have chronicled...gone over night.  No more indebtedness to China...no more credit problems.  This would be great, right?  Well, the problem is that Federal spending exceeds revenue every year by about $1.1 Trillion at today's spending levels. This would mean that one year after the country went to extraordinary measures and sacrifice to retire the debt, each citizen would already owe an additional  $3,500 above their normal tax burden..that's every citizen, children, old, sick, handicapped, ...everyone. Additionally, with current programs and rates, there are future, unfunded liabilities for spending on things like Social Security and Medicare in excess of $61 Trillion...or more than $500,000 per household.   Of course this is not current debt, but gives a view of future debt.

What does this all mean?  Well, it's as I've said again and again, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Even if we got the revenue to retire the debt overnight, the government would be back in debt in no time.  With current spending, there's no way to get things in check.  Government is like an out-of-control teen with credit cards.  Even if they consolidate all of their cards,  they will just run them up again.  We have to take away the cards.  We must return to small, decentralized and limited central government as as was intended by our founders and is in fact law through the Constitution.  We must return our States to a place of prominence, where they can apply checks on the power if the Federal body.  We cannot sustain...cannot long endure...under the current, corrupted system.

This does not, regardless of what the desperate central planners would have you believe, mean that the poor would be left to live or die on  their own.  It does not mean old people would be forced to eat cat food to survive.  States could look after their own citizens as they see fit, without the burden of overhead caused by the huge Federal bureaucracy.  Each State, according to the wishes of their own electorate, can deal with these problems on their own terms.  If some states wish to pursue a "socialist-like" solution, they are able to...but with no bailouts from the Federal government if it fails.

With this arrangement, I believe States will quickly find viable solutions.  They will have to balance policies that keep and attract business for full employment with the needs of their less fortunate citizens.  They will have to compete for services and opportunity to keep people from moving to states that better meet their needs and expectations.  To do this with no bail-outs means they will have to do what works, and not engage in wild,  Utopian experiments.  They will only be able to provide safety nets to the "truly needy," as they define it in their own States.  In short, they will have to run their affairs like responsible adults and not spoiled kids.  This is the Utility of Federalism that I have posted about in the past.

Ask yourself, would you trust your money to an investment that created ever-increasing, crushing debt, no matter how much money you contributed?  An investment with huge overhead and red tape?  Of course not.  Why would you then trust our current government?  This may go against what you have always believed, but it is what the founders intended.  As for myself, I would rather stand with the learned, patriotic statesmen of the founding than the power-hungry, corrupt politicians of today.

Tax the Rich?

I know I have posted several Antony Davies videos, but he is very good at putting debt and deficit issues in very clear perspective.

One thing that Liberals, Keynesians, and Class Warriors of all stripes always ignore is that there are consequences to their policies.  Namely, that higher taxes are a disincentive to business and economic activity in general.  Davies points out that to balance the budget (not reduce the debt) you would have to raise the taxes of the top 5% of Americans to 88%.  This would reduce the average "rich household's" real income to about $36,000/year.  "Making the average rich household worse off than the average household."

Would you, or anyone, continue to work hard to make a lot of money if it were going to be taken from you, redistributed to the less productive, and make you worse off than someone with an average job?  History tells us no.  Whether the pilgrims of Plymouth Colony who became lazy and unproductive in their commune established by the Mayflower Compact, or the Soviet people who had a common saying that "as long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."  Socialism has never worked.  Taking from the rich simply makes the rich less productive...taxing corporations simply passes on the cost to the consumer, who buys less product.  Raising taxes on any activity reduces the activity...which reduces the tax revenue.  Many central planners have been surprised and dismayed, for example, that raising taxes on cigarettes has actually resulted in decreased revenue as some people stop smoking or cut back, and some find other, lower taxed sources.

Here is another great video where Professor Davies shows how ridiculous it is to continue to call for taxing the rich to deal with our deficit   The answer is to CUT SPENDING.  As he says in the last line of the video:

"The budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget."

How Do We Balance The Budget?

Regardless of who wins the upcoming Presidential election, there are hard decisions to be made to avoid a financial disaster in our country.  Federal spending is out of control with no apparent end in site. At the time of this posting the Federal debt exceeds $16 Trillion.  That's:

$16,000,000,000,000

In past posts I have put this kind of debt in perspective (and that was in 2011 when the debt was only $14 Trillion)...I have shown that it is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.  Raising taxes can't fix it, because you could tax corporations and everyone who is considered rich at 100% and still not have enough money to feed the government's spending habit.

Though everyone knows that we have an unsustainable debt problem...that our deficits continue to grow, government continues to expand programs...and therefore spending.  Not only that, but the government has been actively advertising and recruiting to get more people on the roles of programs like food stamps.  Today the Washington Times reported that "Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent."  While welfare programs were cut during the Clinton administration, the Obama administration has been redoubling their efforts to increase this spending.

We are headed in the wrong direction.   I agree with then candidate Obama when he said of the much smaller debt under Bush, "That's irresponsible.  It's unpatriotic." We must first stop the bleeding, and then begin to return to fiscal responsibility and prudence.  This can only happen through a return to the principles of limited and decentralized government.  Come on folks, let's get patriotic again.

Professor Antony Davies has another great video on the issue:

Side Effects

I'm always amazed, after hearing the possible side-effects of drugs on the TV commercials, how quick Americans are to swallow pills for nearly any symptom.  I mean, have you paid attention to the legally required fast-talker at the end of any of these commercials?

Symptoms may include drowsiness, dizziness, thoughts of suicide...headaches... diarrhea... nausea...may cause heart damage...liver damage...may result in decreased sex drive.  Call your doctor if you have trouble breathing... sleeping...going to the bathroom..or if it lasts more than four hours.  Don't take this product if you are pregnant...may ever become pregnant...are around anyone who is pregnant.  Rare...but not so rare that we can't mention it...side effects can include hair loss...blindness...stroke...heart attack...or DEATH.

Seriously?  I think, in most cases, I'd rather put up with the original symptoms than risk the kind of side effects I hear on these commercials.  Now, don't get me wrong, I know modern drugs have helped to improve and prolong the lives of millions upon millions of people  Too many times, though, people risk these serious complications for symptoms that are not life threatening, or which could be treated through a lifestyle change...stop smoking...get some exercise...stop eating donuts five times a day...you know, stuff like that.

But, I realize that this is the kind of society we live in now.  Most people want a quick fix.  Just give them a pill that they can pop and let them go on their way.  Many times, they have to take other pills to counteract the side effects of the first pills and before you know it, nobody is sure what is causing which symptom.  I have seen this happen with my own family members, being on so many drugs from different doctors that it causes unforeseen reactions. But, on the whole,we as a society continue to blindly trust our health to the pills and potions dispensed by our doctors...regardless of the possible side effects.  But really, wouldn't most of us be better taking less drugs and understanding all of the possible side effects and interactions of what we do take?

I have also come to realize that this same societal propensity for the quick-fix pill has given us our current state of all-invasive government.  When we see something we don't like, some perceived injustice, immorality, or even just an inconvenience, we too often turn to government for a quick fix.  Over the years, too many have come to trust elected officials as they do doctors...without questioning, trusting that that their council and prescriptions must be what's best.  Unlike doctors though, government's prescriptions -- laws, taxes, regulations, fines, programs and pork -- don't just affect those seeking symptom relief, but spills over onto all of society.

The United States of America was founded by people who rebelled against an overreaching, tyrannical government.  They saw that, as George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  These founders sought to decentralize and limit government to it's bare minimum required to allow people to live in a civil society.  The big debate during the Constitutional Convention was between those who wanted a very limited central government (the Federalists) and those who wanted an even more limited government (the Anti-federalists).  They realized that there was a place for government, but that it should be used as a last resort and as little as possible for the over-all health of society.

Today, though, many see government, like pills, as the first recourse for nearly any perceived ill in society...seemingly with absolutely no regard for possible side effects.  The side effects and interactions of government are not rare and are very detrimental to the health of society and liberty.  Let's look at just a couple of examples of side effects of government:

As laws are the main prescription dispensed from the government apothecary, many citizens believe that the main job of their representatives is to churn out new laws.  There are thousands and thousands of laws on the books with new ones being passed every year.  Most of these laws have penalties for those who break them.    Penalties typically consist of fines or incarceration.  Every new law creates potential for people to break them...and therefore new enforcement.  A side effect of so many laws is the high rate of incarceration we have in this country, higher than all of the other developed countries in the world...combined.  With only 4.5% of the world's population, we imprison 23% of the world's prisoners.  Ask yourself, is this because America is such an evil den of criminals?   Are we worse than China...than Russia?  Are we on the verge of some dystopian collapse or is it that the thousands and thousands of laws we have on the books provides huge opportunity for the use of government force?  John Stossel has a great program on the subject called Illegal Everything.

What about the laws that are made to help people?  Surely these are okay, right?  Well, let's look at one of government's attempts to help people.  Back in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the government said it was just unfair that everyone wasn't able to own their own home.  President Clinton launched The National Homeownership Strategy which spawned the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1994 to encourage more lending in poor and minority neighborhood (article on details).  To make a long story short, government meddling, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the banks to offer loans to families that they wouldn't have normally been able to afford.  This meant demand for housing went up, and with increased demand there is increased pricing. Raising prices caused real estate speculation to raise.  Government then strong-armed the banks to increase level of lending and create more favorable terms to allow families to cope with the rising costs.  This all caused the housing bubble that eventually burst and was a major cause of our current economic woes.  The end result is that the very people the law was intended to help were hurt the worst...along with the rest of the country.

Loop holes are a side effect of the interactions of laws.  It seems that no sooner than a law is passed, there are people lobbying congress for relief from aspects of the law that caused new, undesirable symptoms.  Politicians, of course, are more than happy to offer new laws or adjustments for the proper...ah, remunerations to their reelection funds.  The latest example of this is the hundreds (about 1200 to be exact) of companies who lined up and received exemptions from Obamacare.  

If we accept the truism that "power corrupts," it should also be noted that power emboldens.  As we have ceded more of our power to the politicians and trusted them to always make the right decisions for us, they have become like physicians with a god complex.  At least doctors are well trained and tested to perform their roles.  Politicians need only convince people to vote for them to get their jobs.  Being elected does not make them an expert in anything, but they increasingly act as if they know what's best for us and will inflict their will on us whether we agree or not.  The passage of Obamacare is a good recent example of this side effect also.  We were told that we just didn't understand the issues...that we had to pass the law before we could know what was in it.   Over the stringent protests of a majority of the American people, in an act of supreme arrogance, the Democratically controlled Congress, lead by Reid and Pelosi, passed the largest tax hike in the history of the country in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

These are just a few examples of the side effects of an overreaching government.  Multiply this by the thousands and thousands of laws, regulations and policies that are inflicted on us by government.  Don't get me wrong, though I lean very heavily libertarian, I do believe there is a place for government.  I just believe, as the founders did, that it should be dispensed sparingly with great care and with close attention to possible side effects:

Government: CAUTION, possible side effects include incarceration, high taxation, over regulation, bankruptcy, market bubbles, loop holes, corruption, huge debt, deficits and a general loss of liberty.

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

Are You Getting It Yet?

In several past posts, I have given information on the size and scope of the federal debt.  I have supplied some very good videos from others...and some of you still think that it's just not that bad.  Some think, like multimillionaire, hypocrite Michael Moore, that America is awash with money and if we just take it from the evil rich, we would all be okay.

In this video, self-described independent, and motivational speaker Tony Robbins uses information originally compiled by blogger IowaHawk and updates it for 2012.  This takes a look at what would happen if we did soak the rich.

This should be a real eye opener.  It is abundantly and mathematically certain that we cannot tax our way out of the mess our politicians have gotten us into.  We must CUT SPENDING...DRASTICALLY.  And if we don't, we will have a collapse of our economy.  It's not too late...I think...but that time is quickly coming.  Are you getting it yet?  We can't tolerate the status quo.  We cannot continue to allow our elected officials to use OUR MONEY to buy votes, power, and influence.    We cannot take care of everyone...cradle-to-grave.  We have to cut the size and scope of government dramatically!

Are You Getting It YET?

D or R...Government Keeps Growing

Jack Hunter nailed it again.  This is what I'm talking about...and why I'm not very hopeful that the next Republican president will really offer much in the way of solutions.

The chart on the left illustrates what Mr. Hunter is saying in the video below...namely that government grows no matter who is president.  It also doesn't matter who runs Congress.  It always grows.

This is why we must look to the States to reign in the out-of-control Federal government by nullifying any Federal law that is beyond the Constitutional power of the central government.  We must also ween the States from the Federal teat...refusing to take Federal money as a bribe to knuckle under to Federal usurpation of State power.

Don't get me wrong....we must defeat Obama!  He is on the verge of the single largest peace-time power grab in the history of the country.  He must be booted out.  But, the Republican party has become the "just not quite as big government as the other guys" party.  They are still big government...still power mongers.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Posts:

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows:
Why Feed the Pig?
Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Treaties and Ambassadors of the States

"[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and and which shall establish by law: but the Congress may by law vest appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." ~ The Constitution of the United States; Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

If you have any doubt about the Founding Father's intention concerning the role of the the States in our Federal government, ask yourself why the Constitution specifically spells out that the President must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate for making treaties, appointing ambassadors and the other issues spelled out in Article II...and not the House.

As you're considering this, remember that the Senate, as originally designed...before the Seventeenth Amendment...was appointed by the legislators of the States.  They were to act "in the quality of ambassadors of the states," according to Massachusetts ratifying convention member, Fisher Ames.  The reason for this is that the country was designed not as a monolithic nation, but as a federation of sovereign States...thus the term United States, and the term Federal government.  Any treaties, ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc., directly affects and represents these sovereign states.  The State governments, therefore, were to have a direct input to these issues through their ambassadors to the central government...THEIR Senators.

Additionally, according to Article II, Section 1, "Each State shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, an number of electors" to choose the President of the United States.  This is the so-called Electoral College.  As James Madison explains in Federalist 39, "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.  The votes allotted to them are in compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and co-equal societies; partly as unequal as unequal members of the same society."

So, the States were to elect the President, through the electoral process, and provide advice and consent, through their "Ambassador/Senators" to any treaties and most appointments that the President makes.  The Senators were to provide a check on the power of the federal executive and "afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

Here is more from Fisher Ames:

Fisher Ames

"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."　

The Federal government has greatly overstepped it's constitutional bounds.  The office of the President has almost become the royal dictatorship that the founders sought to avoid.  The States must, if our republic is to survive, stand up and re-establish their role as a check on the power of the Federal government.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Links:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!
Balance of Power

It's Simple Math

Bill Whittle has recently posted another very insightful video in his Afterburner segment on PJTV.com. He points out that President Obama, while being touted as the smartest man ever to hold the office, doesn't seem to be able to do simple arithmetic.   The mounting debt we face is unsustainable, and yet Obama has asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt.

As Whittle puts it:

"We're just gonna have to face the arithmetic.  All the money in the world is gone!  It's been pillaged by the weak-willed, power hungry elitists who have stolen it to buy votes and stay in power.  That's the arithmetic."

While he does not believe it will be as bad as past collapses, we will have to pull together, tighten our belts, sacrifice some things we now think are important, and work through it together. "You are the people that's going to get this country, and the rest of the world, out of this mess...not our leaders...not our celebrities...not political pundits and talking heads.  You are...you and me...all of us."



Related Posts:
The National Debt in Perspective
The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

Power and Corruption

Just a brief thought:

If the maxim "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" was true in 1887 when Lord Acton first penned it, how much more is the corruption today when the potential for power is so much greater? It is even more important today to keep power decentralized, as the Founding Fathers intended, than it was in the beginning of our republic.

Were The Anti-Federalists Right?

In a great series on PJTV called Freedom's Charter, Scott Ott has succinctly laid out the original intent of the scope of our Federal Government, and where it all went wrong in a chapter called Madison Was Wrong (see below).

Remember, in the original debates on the constitution, there were those who wanted a very limited Federal government (The Federalists), and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (The Anti-Federalists).  The Anti-Federalists argued that there were not enough restrictions and checks on the power of the central, Federal government as proposed by the Federalists.  They believed such a central government could and would eventually usurp the authority of the States.

It seems the Anti-Federalists may have been right.  But, is the reason lack of checks built into the constitution?  Or, is it that the States have ceded their authority and failed in their role to limit the central power?  Ott gets right to the point:

"In the first quarter of 2009, for the first time in history, the Federal government became the largest source of income for State governments.  James Madison's generation feared Federal bullies with bullets.  They apparently didn't anticipate that tyranny could stroll in on a green carpet of cash...welcomed by the passively subdued States that had created the Federal Government."

RelatedPosts:

Balance of Power:

The Utility of Federalism:

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Why Feed the Pig:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Serfdom? ... Or Worse?

This video by Stefan Molyneaux of Freedomain Radio puts our national debt and the oligarchical Federal Government in grim focus.  It asks the important question, "Where is your government going to get the money to pay off its creditors?"  The answer is chilling..."Governments have only one asset that they can use as collateral. Your leaders are selling you."



For text of video, CLICK HERE.

The More Things Change...

In October of 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a televised speech entitled A Time For Choosing in support of then Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.  In this speech he outlines  differences between the liberals and conservatives.  He also lays out some of the problems the country faced at that time.

"Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value."

Sound familiar?  It should, but today, the numbers are even worse.  Reagan rejected the liberal stance that  the solution to the problems was a larger, more centralized government.

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?  But the reverse is true."

Watch the video of this amazing speech to see how much is the same as it was at that time.  Notice that the stakes are the same. "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

A few more great quotes from the speech:

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear."

"Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."