In reading Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" There is a section about "plunder" or as we would call it, theft. There are two kinds of "plunder;" legal and illegal.
Illegal plunder is just what it sounds like; the use of force or threat of force by a private person or group to take what is yours, whether money or property.
Legal plunder is a little more tricky. Legal plunder is when the government uses force or the threat of force to take money from you to give to someone else. The tricky part comes in what the money is used for. Before I read what "legal plunder" entailed, I only thought of welfare, food stamps, WIC, and any other entitlement program which gives money to those who did not earn it. While those are types of legal plunder, they are only the tip of the iceberg. Subsidies, public schools, progressive taxation (this means that if there must be a tax, everyone should pay the same percentage no matter how much they make), protective tariffs, minimum wages, etc. In addition to those examples that Bastiat gave we can include Pell Grant's, subsidized student loans, guaranteed home loans (Fannie and Freddie), medicaid, paying farmers not to grow anything on their farms, etc.
Why am I bringing this subject up at this time?
Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) has recently introduced his budget plan which has been called, "The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise." In his plan, Ryan has budget projections all the way to 2051 which eventually will balance the federal budget and start paying down the national debt. While I applaud what his apparent goals are; cut federal spending and paying down the debt, it is unrealistic and cements into law legal plunder in the "social safety net." When the health care bill was introduced with its budget projections of 10 years out, many who opposed it called BS when the cost projections were released because the government can't reliably predict budgets or spending on government entitlement programs unless they restrict services by rationing. So when Rep. Ryan introduces a budget plan that plans out 40 years, why should we all of a sudden think that this is reliable. Not only can the government not guarantee revenue into its coffers, but one Congress cannot dictate the actions of another. Therefore, Rep. Ryan's budget plan can be passed by the House and Senate and then signed by the President, and a future Congress can shoot the mainline and double the spending if they want.
This means that the only thing that Rep. Ryan's budget would do is admit to the parasites that the establishment GOP has given up on getting rid of any of the entitlement programs that are in place. If this is the best that the GOP can do, we are doomed.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Violating Libyan Sovereignty
The United Nations today, March 17, authorized the use of force to impose a "No Fly Zone" (NFZ) over Libyan airspace; see the following link; http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/uk-libya-idUKLDE71Q0MP20110317. Of course, the United States will be expected to help enforce the NFZ through the treat of violence if it is violated. If the U.S. military were to take part without a declaration of war by Congress, this would be unconstitutional. This never stops the government from doing something that they want to do, but with the new crop of "Tea Party" congressmen claiming to swear fidelity to the Constitution, you would expect them to hold true to their oath. Since this news just broke this afternoon, we will wait and see if they demand that war be declared before we take any sort of military action, but I won't hold my breath that war is declared before we invade Libyan airspace.
Now some may wonder why it is a bad idea to enforce the NFZ, after all, Gaddafi is killing his own citizens who are protesting against him.
The first reason I oppose involving ourselves into Libyan politics, after all that is essentially what it comes down to, is we are broke. We can't afford the war in Afghanistan or Iraq so what makes anyone think that we will suddenly be able to afford a third military incursion; even if it is only billed as simple air missions?
Second, who are we to tell any other, sovereign, nation how to run their country. As long as they aren't disrupting our ships, both military and civilian, and they aren't trying to invade us, we should leave them alone. By the way this is is called non-intervention, not isolation.
Who among us would stand for any other nation who tried to tell us how to run our country and then used military action to enforce it? What make the U.N.'s or our actions any different? Those who would claim that the protesters would be able to set up a democracy that would write a constitution that would mirror ours or come close don't understand the underlying tone of the protesters. The type of government that is likely to come out of a disposed Gaddafi would be one of Sharia law. Dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein had more of a secular government not a Sharia law type of government.
Instead of going around the globe looking for monsters to slay, we should mind our own business and try to keep invaders out of our country instead of "democratizing" the rest of the world.
Now some may wonder why it is a bad idea to enforce the NFZ, after all, Gaddafi is killing his own citizens who are protesting against him.
The first reason I oppose involving ourselves into Libyan politics, after all that is essentially what it comes down to, is we are broke. We can't afford the war in Afghanistan or Iraq so what makes anyone think that we will suddenly be able to afford a third military incursion; even if it is only billed as simple air missions?
Second, who are we to tell any other, sovereign, nation how to run their country. As long as they aren't disrupting our ships, both military and civilian, and they aren't trying to invade us, we should leave them alone. By the way this is is called non-intervention, not isolation.
Who among us would stand for any other nation who tried to tell us how to run our country and then used military action to enforce it? What make the U.N.'s or our actions any different? Those who would claim that the protesters would be able to set up a democracy that would write a constitution that would mirror ours or come close don't understand the underlying tone of the protesters. The type of government that is likely to come out of a disposed Gaddafi would be one of Sharia law. Dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein had more of a secular government not a Sharia law type of government.
Instead of going around the globe looking for monsters to slay, we should mind our own business and try to keep invaders out of our country instead of "democratizing" the rest of the world.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Nullification
In a Washington Post article on Jan. 26, 2011 titled "GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight," some legal analysts/scholars have either missed the point or need to go back to school and learn about the founding again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012604912.html
The first area I have a problem with is as follows:
"The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws 'the supreme law of the land.' The Idaho attorney general has weighed in as well, branding nullification unconstitutional."
The problem with deeming the Constitution the "supreme law of the land" would suggest that the United States Constitution was binding on the federal and state governments which is false in the respect that most people think today otherwise, why would the individual states have their own state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is binding only on the federal government inasmuch as it tells the federal government what specific powers they have been granted by the states. The only part of the U.S. Constitution that restricts the individual states is Article I section 10, which lays out areas that the states are forbidden to take part in. A couple of areas that the individual states are restricted according to the Constitution is in making treaties or coining money.
So as you see, the Constitution cannot be the supreme law of the land in the way that most people think because we would no longer have a federal government, we would have a national one where the central government would dictate to the states in all facets of life. Although we are living in a situation like this for the most parts, you have to remember that the states created the federal government, no the other way around.
"'There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a state will follow,' wrote Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane."
This statement is an example of one individual who needs to learn about the founding and the roles the individual states had in forming the federal government. Again, first came the states; then came the federal government. The problem we have today, is that the states have allowed the federal government to enact laws which were blatantly unconstitutional, and because they were popular, the states kept their mouths shut and let the federal government take power that they had no right to take without an amendment. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't help in all this. The Supreme Court is not made of perfect people, justices come to the court and "interpret" the Constitution and justify their rulings by twisting and turning words and phrases so they say what they want them to say. If they can't do that, they cite some document or letter that someone important wrote and say, "See, this is why Congress can do that." even when it isn't in the Constitution anywhere.
"'A lot people say, if the Supreme Court decides that it is constitutional, you have to live with it. My feeling is, the people should have the final say,' [Republican Sen. Scott] Beason [of Alabama] told The Associated Press on Tuesday. 'Frankly, the only recourse people have is for the states to try to flex some sovereignty muscle.'"
The only problem I have with this statement is in the last part of the first half of the quote where Mr. Beason used the term "the people" in saying who was the final arbiter in determining which laws are constitutional. I would replace "the people" with the states after all, it is the states that created the federal government, not the people. The preamble of the Constitution is misleading when it starts out "We the people" instead of "We the States." If it were truly "We the people" why didn't everybody have a say so in what the Constitution said and if it were to be ratified?
"'He[Thomas Jefferson] was at the Constitutional Convention,' [Idaho Republican Sen. Monty] Pearce said. 'He understood how this whole thing was going to be set up.'
"Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation."
While Jefferson wasn't physically at the Federal Convention of 1787, he was aware of what was happening before it started and when it concluded. Jefferson wrote a letter against ratifying the Constitution and that letter was used to urge against ratifying in the Virginia ratification debates. But this is just a side note.
"And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions - there's no such mention in the Constitution, said David Gray Adler, a constitutional scholar who directs the University of Idaho's McClure Center for Public Policy Research."
Amazing that Mr. Adler would take this position when it is the left who twisted Jefferson's words to justify why school prayer was unconstitutional as well as every other "religious" prohibition in public. You can't have it both ways. Either Jefferson knows a little something about the Constitution or he doesn't. By the way, to all you people who say that an individual state can't have a state religion because of the first amendment, why did Connecticut have a state religion into the early 1800s? The answer is because the Constitution, which includes the amendments, dealt with the federal government not the state governments.
"'There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government,' Adler said. 'We have a long string of Supreme Court decisions that reject their theory.'"
There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the states are inferior to the federal government either and since the Constitution is binding on the federal government, this means that any power not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states are retained by the states. This may seem familiar because it is, essentially, the tenth amendment. Since nullification, or secession, isn't specifically discussed, one way or the other, in the Constitution, those options are still valid.
The rest of the article claims that nullification hasn't worked in the past. The first example used was the 1832 tariff hikes that had South Carolina threatening secession. What happened? The tariff rates were reduced. Another pre-Civil War example was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and Wisconsin's nullification of it. This is completely false as Wisconsin refused to abide by the law and even went as far as freeing a man that was in the custody of the federal government. If that is an example of nullification not working, I hope that all acts of nullification were as unsuccessful as that.
The other example was the school desegregation in the 1950s in Arkansas where the federal government sent in the army to force the desegregation of Arkansas schools.
While I don't agree with the ideas of segregation, the federal government has no say in the affairs of the states. But this shows how things got turned around as a result of the Civil War, or as I like to call it, the War of Northern Aggression. As a result of Lincoln's invasion of the south, the federal government started to think that its powers were limitless and could impose its will on the states but an in depth discussion of Lincoln's War is best saved for a later date. Just remember, nullification and secession are both valid and legal options no matter what "legal scholars" may say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012604912.html
The first area I have a problem with is as follows:
"The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws 'the supreme law of the land.' The Idaho attorney general has weighed in as well, branding nullification unconstitutional."
The problem with deeming the Constitution the "supreme law of the land" would suggest that the United States Constitution was binding on the federal and state governments which is false in the respect that most people think today otherwise, why would the individual states have their own state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is binding only on the federal government inasmuch as it tells the federal government what specific powers they have been granted by the states. The only part of the U.S. Constitution that restricts the individual states is Article I section 10, which lays out areas that the states are forbidden to take part in. A couple of areas that the individual states are restricted according to the Constitution is in making treaties or coining money.
So as you see, the Constitution cannot be the supreme law of the land in the way that most people think because we would no longer have a federal government, we would have a national one where the central government would dictate to the states in all facets of life. Although we are living in a situation like this for the most parts, you have to remember that the states created the federal government, no the other way around.
"'There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a state will follow,' wrote Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane."
This statement is an example of one individual who needs to learn about the founding and the roles the individual states had in forming the federal government. Again, first came the states; then came the federal government. The problem we have today, is that the states have allowed the federal government to enact laws which were blatantly unconstitutional, and because they were popular, the states kept their mouths shut and let the federal government take power that they had no right to take without an amendment. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't help in all this. The Supreme Court is not made of perfect people, justices come to the court and "interpret" the Constitution and justify their rulings by twisting and turning words and phrases so they say what they want them to say. If they can't do that, they cite some document or letter that someone important wrote and say, "See, this is why Congress can do that." even when it isn't in the Constitution anywhere.
"'A lot people say, if the Supreme Court decides that it is constitutional, you have to live with it. My feeling is, the people should have the final say,' [Republican Sen. Scott] Beason [of Alabama] told The Associated Press on Tuesday. 'Frankly, the only recourse people have is for the states to try to flex some sovereignty muscle.'"
The only problem I have with this statement is in the last part of the first half of the quote where Mr. Beason used the term "the people" in saying who was the final arbiter in determining which laws are constitutional. I would replace "the people" with the states after all, it is the states that created the federal government, not the people. The preamble of the Constitution is misleading when it starts out "We the people" instead of "We the States." If it were truly "We the people" why didn't everybody have a say so in what the Constitution said and if it were to be ratified?
"'He[Thomas Jefferson] was at the Constitutional Convention,' [Idaho Republican Sen. Monty] Pearce said. 'He understood how this whole thing was going to be set up.'
"Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation."
While Jefferson wasn't physically at the Federal Convention of 1787, he was aware of what was happening before it started and when it concluded. Jefferson wrote a letter against ratifying the Constitution and that letter was used to urge against ratifying in the Virginia ratification debates. But this is just a side note.
"And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions - there's no such mention in the Constitution, said David Gray Adler, a constitutional scholar who directs the University of Idaho's McClure Center for Public Policy Research."
Amazing that Mr. Adler would take this position when it is the left who twisted Jefferson's words to justify why school prayer was unconstitutional as well as every other "religious" prohibition in public. You can't have it both ways. Either Jefferson knows a little something about the Constitution or he doesn't. By the way, to all you people who say that an individual state can't have a state religion because of the first amendment, why did Connecticut have a state religion into the early 1800s? The answer is because the Constitution, which includes the amendments, dealt with the federal government not the state governments.
"'There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government,' Adler said. 'We have a long string of Supreme Court decisions that reject their theory.'"
There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the states are inferior to the federal government either and since the Constitution is binding on the federal government, this means that any power not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states are retained by the states. This may seem familiar because it is, essentially, the tenth amendment. Since nullification, or secession, isn't specifically discussed, one way or the other, in the Constitution, those options are still valid.
The rest of the article claims that nullification hasn't worked in the past. The first example used was the 1832 tariff hikes that had South Carolina threatening secession. What happened? The tariff rates were reduced. Another pre-Civil War example was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and Wisconsin's nullification of it. This is completely false as Wisconsin refused to abide by the law and even went as far as freeing a man that was in the custody of the federal government. If that is an example of nullification not working, I hope that all acts of nullification were as unsuccessful as that.
The other example was the school desegregation in the 1950s in Arkansas where the federal government sent in the army to force the desegregation of Arkansas schools.
While I don't agree with the ideas of segregation, the federal government has no say in the affairs of the states. But this shows how things got turned around as a result of the Civil War, or as I like to call it, the War of Northern Aggression. As a result of Lincoln's invasion of the south, the federal government started to think that its powers were limitless and could impose its will on the states but an in depth discussion of Lincoln's War is best saved for a later date. Just remember, nullification and secession are both valid and legal options no matter what "legal scholars" may say.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Decepti-Cons and RINOs
Apparently the RINOs and Decipti-Cons are unable to take the job of cutting the budget seriously because as terrible as I thought the Republican's "Pledge to America" was when it proclaimed to cut the budget back to 2008 levels; the latest news from the Republican leadership makes it worse. You may be wondering how it can get any worse since that small of a cut is a drop in the bucket but trust me it is worse than expected. Those who were the cheerleaders of the Republican party and assured us that the Republicans had learned from their mistakes share part of the blame. The plan to cut the budget back to 2008 levels as laid out in the "Pledge to America" seems to have a few hidden disclaimers in it. Those disclaimers are as follows:
1) Budget cuts don't include cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, "security" funding, or non-discretionary funding.
2) Budget cuts will be phased in and will be fully in place in 2015.
3) These budget cuts are subject to change without prior notice or warning or if we don't have the stones to go through with it or if we lose power or if we have a Decepti-Con in the White House that will rubber stamp anything we want or if the next Decepti-Con president can think of some way to put us deeper in debt.
Alright, now that those disclaimers are out take another look at the first disclaimer. Notice that the cuts won't apply to Social Security so that black hole will continue to be insolvent. Medicare see the previous sentence. Medicaid, we can't expect the individual States to take care of their own poor so we'll do it for them for a small fee.
As offensive as those three are, the fourth area that is off limits is "security" funding. What, pray-tell, could that cover? Of course that will include most of the budget from defense to TSA. I know that defense spending is supposed to be the sacred cow of the Republicans but we can cut defense spending without risking our safety and security. Why do we "need" a sizable defense budget? If you ask any of the RINOs and Decepti-Cons, when we're completely out of Iraq; except for the bases that we will hold "just in case" and the permanent security force left on the ground; and once we are almost through with Afghanistan, we will bomb Iran into the stone age and set up a government that we approve of in our quest to bring democracy to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world. In addition to defense, security funding will include the Department of Homeland (in)Security, ICE, Border Patrol, TSA, FBI, and any other agency that may remotely be tied to "security."
Now the second disclaimer is so blatantly offensive that it doesn't need to be expounded upon further.
The last disclaimer isn't one that will actually be said but anyone who has been following politics for more than a couple years and who is honest know that the Republican leadership has the back bone of a jellyfish and doesn't have the guts to withstand the pressures of the "mainstream" media. For some reason; probably because they don't really believe in a limited government; anytime the Republicans are criticized for wanting to cut spending, they are unable to make a principled and coherent argument as to why they are cutting spending or why they want to reduce taxes or any other idea that may get us ever closer to obeying the Constitution.
When will the Decepti-Cons take their oath seriously and err on the side of liberty? When will the establishment Republicans see the error of their ways in fighting never-ending wars and imposing our will around the globe? When will the Republicans do what is necessary and defund 90%+ of federal agencies and departments, most of which are unconstitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled? When will Republicans yell, "Stop!" at this runaway freight train that is the federal government?
It would be nice if this were to happen, but truth be told, the establishment Republicans, RINOs, and Decepti-Cons don't really want a limited government, they want to be in charge of the government and will only pay lip service to limited government only inasmuch as it keeps them in power. When they see it as a liability, they will scuttle those views in favor of a large, overbearing government.
1) Budget cuts don't include cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, "security" funding, or non-discretionary funding.
2) Budget cuts will be phased in and will be fully in place in 2015.
3) These budget cuts are subject to change without prior notice or warning or if we don't have the stones to go through with it or if we lose power or if we have a Decepti-Con in the White House that will rubber stamp anything we want or if the next Decepti-Con president can think of some way to put us deeper in debt.
Alright, now that those disclaimers are out take another look at the first disclaimer. Notice that the cuts won't apply to Social Security so that black hole will continue to be insolvent. Medicare see the previous sentence. Medicaid, we can't expect the individual States to take care of their own poor so we'll do it for them for a small fee.
As offensive as those three are, the fourth area that is off limits is "security" funding. What, pray-tell, could that cover? Of course that will include most of the budget from defense to TSA. I know that defense spending is supposed to be the sacred cow of the Republicans but we can cut defense spending without risking our safety and security. Why do we "need" a sizable defense budget? If you ask any of the RINOs and Decepti-Cons, when we're completely out of Iraq; except for the bases that we will hold "just in case" and the permanent security force left on the ground; and once we are almost through with Afghanistan, we will bomb Iran into the stone age and set up a government that we approve of in our quest to bring democracy to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world. In addition to defense, security funding will include the Department of Homeland (in)Security, ICE, Border Patrol, TSA, FBI, and any other agency that may remotely be tied to "security."
Now the second disclaimer is so blatantly offensive that it doesn't need to be expounded upon further.
The last disclaimer isn't one that will actually be said but anyone who has been following politics for more than a couple years and who is honest know that the Republican leadership has the back bone of a jellyfish and doesn't have the guts to withstand the pressures of the "mainstream" media. For some reason; probably because they don't really believe in a limited government; anytime the Republicans are criticized for wanting to cut spending, they are unable to make a principled and coherent argument as to why they are cutting spending or why they want to reduce taxes or any other idea that may get us ever closer to obeying the Constitution.
When will the Decepti-Cons take their oath seriously and err on the side of liberty? When will the establishment Republicans see the error of their ways in fighting never-ending wars and imposing our will around the globe? When will the Republicans do what is necessary and defund 90%+ of federal agencies and departments, most of which are unconstitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled? When will Republicans yell, "Stop!" at this runaway freight train that is the federal government?
It would be nice if this were to happen, but truth be told, the establishment Republicans, RINOs, and Decepti-Cons don't really want a limited government, they want to be in charge of the government and will only pay lip service to limited government only inasmuch as it keeps them in power. When they see it as a liability, they will scuttle those views in favor of a large, overbearing government.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The Constitution is Read in the House
In one of the most meaningless, feel-good measures ever, those who have betrayed our trust and violated their oath, read the Constitution from beginning to end on the floor of the House this morning to kick off the 112th Congress.
You may ask, "What's wrong with reading the Constitution? Shouldn't our elected officials be reminded of what the document says?" The problem with reading the Constitution is most of the Congressmen, this isn't their first term in office. They should already know what the document says. Also, even though they should know the entire document, they should try to abide by Article I which deals with Congress (both House and Senate) and not pay lip service to it. In another worthless gesture, Speaker Boehner put in place some rules concerning the filing of bills. Each bill must include where in the Constitution they get the authority for the bill. Why am I skeptical? Whether it is a bill offered by a Democrat or Republican, they will cite one of three clauses; a) Commerce clause b) Welfare clause or c) Necessary and Proper clause. They will use the Commerce clause the most because they have been able to justify to the Supreme Court in any abstract way that almost all laws impact interstate commerce. The only ruling in recent years that I can think of was the domestic violence law that was passed in the '90s. Shockingly, the Supreme Court did actually strike that law down and said that it did not fall under the stated reasoning that was given why it fell under the Commerce clause.
Ever wonder why the federal government is involved in education? The abstract reasoning is that educated children will be able to get a job and will then be able to participate in interstate commerce. This is also why the federal ban on firearms in schools was passed. Congress claimed that if children worried about someone bringing a firearm (or any weapon) to school, they would have a harder time learning and would therefore not get as good of a job and would be less likely to participate fully in interstate commerce. In Dr. Kevin Gutzman's book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" there are many examples of abuses that have been perpetrated on the document by the tyrants in D.C. Another great book is one that Dr. Gutzman co-authored with Dr. Thomas Woods called "Who Killed the Constitution." I have read both books as well as a number of other books on the founding and the founders. If you don't have time to do a lot of reading, Mike Church has made a few documentaries on the Declaration of Independence, the time between the Declaration and the Constitution, and the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. All three are audio documentaries and the last one also comes as a DVD.
If we could get Congress to do more than pay lip service to the Constitution, we would be on the road to restoring our liberties.
Thomas Paine said in "Common Sense" in 1776, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one;..."
You be the judge as to what point we are at in regards to government and evil. Are we closer to the necessary evil or the intolerable evil? The answer to that question depends on whether you are comfortable with a larger or smaller government. My answer to my own question may be obvious to those who know me but for those who don't know me very well, I am of the opinion that we are dangerously close to government being an intolerable evil. In some respects, the federal government has passed the point of being an intolerable evil and some of the State governments are toeing the line of being an intolerable evil too. Until more people start to view the government as oppressive, people like me will have to do all we can to educate those around us to come to our side.
You may ask, "What's wrong with reading the Constitution? Shouldn't our elected officials be reminded of what the document says?" The problem with reading the Constitution is most of the Congressmen, this isn't their first term in office. They should already know what the document says. Also, even though they should know the entire document, they should try to abide by Article I which deals with Congress (both House and Senate) and not pay lip service to it. In another worthless gesture, Speaker Boehner put in place some rules concerning the filing of bills. Each bill must include where in the Constitution they get the authority for the bill. Why am I skeptical? Whether it is a bill offered by a Democrat or Republican, they will cite one of three clauses; a) Commerce clause b) Welfare clause or c) Necessary and Proper clause. They will use the Commerce clause the most because they have been able to justify to the Supreme Court in any abstract way that almost all laws impact interstate commerce. The only ruling in recent years that I can think of was the domestic violence law that was passed in the '90s. Shockingly, the Supreme Court did actually strike that law down and said that it did not fall under the stated reasoning that was given why it fell under the Commerce clause.
Ever wonder why the federal government is involved in education? The abstract reasoning is that educated children will be able to get a job and will then be able to participate in interstate commerce. This is also why the federal ban on firearms in schools was passed. Congress claimed that if children worried about someone bringing a firearm (or any weapon) to school, they would have a harder time learning and would therefore not get as good of a job and would be less likely to participate fully in interstate commerce. In Dr. Kevin Gutzman's book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" there are many examples of abuses that have been perpetrated on the document by the tyrants in D.C. Another great book is one that Dr. Gutzman co-authored with Dr. Thomas Woods called "Who Killed the Constitution." I have read both books as well as a number of other books on the founding and the founders. If you don't have time to do a lot of reading, Mike Church has made a few documentaries on the Declaration of Independence, the time between the Declaration and the Constitution, and the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. All three are audio documentaries and the last one also comes as a DVD.
If we could get Congress to do more than pay lip service to the Constitution, we would be on the road to restoring our liberties.
Thomas Paine said in "Common Sense" in 1776, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one;..."
You be the judge as to what point we are at in regards to government and evil. Are we closer to the necessary evil or the intolerable evil? The answer to that question depends on whether you are comfortable with a larger or smaller government. My answer to my own question may be obvious to those who know me but for those who don't know me very well, I am of the opinion that we are dangerously close to government being an intolerable evil. In some respects, the federal government has passed the point of being an intolerable evil and some of the State governments are toeing the line of being an intolerable evil too. Until more people start to view the government as oppressive, people like me will have to do all we can to educate those around us to come to our side.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Reducing Federal Spending
There has been a lot of talk over the past year about federal spending and the "national" debt. Those typically on the left, or socialists as I call them, want to increase taxes on the "rich", keep the taxes the same for the "middle class", and lower the taxes for those at the low end of the income bracket. Those on the "right" typically are OK with everyone getting a tax break although they don't see any problem with the tax structure i.e. increased percentage imposed as you make more money. The flaw in both sides is that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes because they are rich but they both will argue on how much is too much.
There are those who say cut taxes but don't mention anything about cutting spending or will suggest cutting a couple million dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget which is a drop in the bucket. The areas of the budget that should have cuts made differ depending on which side of the aisle you are on. For most Democrat/Socialists defense is the only option and for most Republicans/Decepti-Cons defense is the sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. The only place that both sets of people tend to never want to touch is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; it is these entitlement programs that are bankrupting the Republic and need to be done away with as soon as possible while still fulfilling the promise that was made to the elderly and those who are nearing retirement age.
Now you may think that I am just one of those heartless bastards who want granny and grandpa to die a slow, painful, and agonizing death because they can't afford there medicine, doctor visits, or a place to live much less food if it weren't for their government benefits. If you assume that, you are wrong. Medicaid should be abolished on the federal level completely and if the individual States want a program like that they are free to do so but if they go bankrupt because of it they don't get bailed out for their poor choices. Social Security and Medicare can both be phased out. In both cases there would be a cut-off date where anyone born before the date will be eligible when they reach retirement age or they may opt out if they so desire. Those born after the cut-off date would not be eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare but they will be young enough that they will have the opportunity to plan for their own retirement there will be some who were born after that date who have already paid into the system that may ask, "What about the money that I already paid in?" Unfortunately, they will never see that money again because the government doesn't have the money to give back. Life sucks sometimes get over it.
Although Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a significant part of the federal budget, there are areas and agencies that can be eliminated either by abolishing the agency or defunding it which would have the same effect. Many of the agencies or bureaucracies that are in existence are unconstitutional and should be abolished anyway regardless of what the Supreme Court or some federal judge may say. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted by some nitwit with a law degree who studied "constitutional law." In constitutional law courses don't teach the Constitution all it does is teach case history which is opinions of judges who ruled in the past.
If you visit you will be able to get a list of all federal agencies, a list so long that they had to have a tab to click on for each letter in the alphabet except Q-X-Y-Z. If you go through these lists, most of the agencies can be eliminated posthaste. Among the first agencies I would eliminate immediately would be Agriculture, Education, Energy, the EPA, FDA, forestry, parks, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Developement, OSHA, Labor, FCC, FEC, and BATFE. In addition, I would reduce the funding for the DEA, Transportation, Commerce, State, and Justice. These cuts alone would reduce federal spending significantly.
Another huge cut I would make would be foreign aid and funding for the United Nations, NATO, and the IMF. These all would be cut immediately and completely. If people want to contribute their time and money to help those in need, they are free to do so without the coercion of the government. When individuals choose to give, they tend to make sure that their money and time will be put to good use instead of giving money to another government whether corrupt or not. When we give money to another nation, with the money, the United States feels that they are then entitled to tell the nation on the receiving end of the funds transfer what to do and how to run it's country and they may feel they have to listen to us politely or risk getting cut off in the future. With us no longer giving other nations money, they are free to tell us to mind our own business; after all, who are we to tell another country what to do. If Israel wants to bomb Iran, who are we to say no. Israel has its own interests to think about. In addition to cutting all foreign aid, I would also start closing military bases overseas and bring the troops home. In an age when we can deploy troops around the world in a matter of hours, and a Navy that is always out to sea in all corners of the globe, we don't need to occupy any foreign nation. Some may call me an isolationist, I say I am a non-interventionist.
One of our great founding fathers warned of being drawn into foreign entanglements. We were also warned that when we ally ourselves with another nation, we also get their enemies. Lastly, we were also warned not to go searching abroad for dragons to slay. It would be wise for us to take heed and follow the advice of our founders. If you are believe that we should be involved in conflicts across the globe, then at least you should demand an official declaration of war. If you want to allow Congress to give that power to the President, the Constitution must be amended to strip them of that power and give it to the President but I warn you, that in doing so, you give the President almost dictatorial powers.
There are those who say cut taxes but don't mention anything about cutting spending or will suggest cutting a couple million dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget which is a drop in the bucket. The areas of the budget that should have cuts made differ depending on which side of the aisle you are on. For most Democrat/Socialists defense is the only option and for most Republicans/Decepti-Cons defense is the sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. The only place that both sets of people tend to never want to touch is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; it is these entitlement programs that are bankrupting the Republic and need to be done away with as soon as possible while still fulfilling the promise that was made to the elderly and those who are nearing retirement age.
Now you may think that I am just one of those heartless bastards who want granny and grandpa to die a slow, painful, and agonizing death because they can't afford there medicine, doctor visits, or a place to live much less food if it weren't for their government benefits. If you assume that, you are wrong. Medicaid should be abolished on the federal level completely and if the individual States want a program like that they are free to do so but if they go bankrupt because of it they don't get bailed out for their poor choices. Social Security and Medicare can both be phased out. In both cases there would be a cut-off date where anyone born before the date will be eligible when they reach retirement age or they may opt out if they so desire. Those born after the cut-off date would not be eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare but they will be young enough that they will have the opportunity to plan for their own retirement there will be some who were born after that date who have already paid into the system that may ask, "What about the money that I already paid in?" Unfortunately, they will never see that money again because the government doesn't have the money to give back. Life sucks sometimes get over it.
Although Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a significant part of the federal budget, there are areas and agencies that can be eliminated either by abolishing the agency or defunding it which would have the same effect. Many of the agencies or bureaucracies that are in existence are unconstitutional and should be abolished anyway regardless of what the Supreme Court or some federal judge may say. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted by some nitwit with a law degree who studied "constitutional law." In constitutional law courses don't teach the Constitution all it does is teach case history which is opinions of judges who ruled in the past.
If you visit you will be able to get a list of all federal agencies, a list so long that they had to have a tab to click on for each letter in the alphabet except Q-X-Y-Z. If you go through these lists, most of the agencies can be eliminated posthaste. Among the first agencies I would eliminate immediately would be Agriculture, Education, Energy, the EPA, FDA, forestry, parks, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Developement, OSHA, Labor, FCC, FEC, and BATFE. In addition, I would reduce the funding for the DEA, Transportation, Commerce, State, and Justice. These cuts alone would reduce federal spending significantly.
Another huge cut I would make would be foreign aid and funding for the United Nations, NATO, and the IMF. These all would be cut immediately and completely. If people want to contribute their time and money to help those in need, they are free to do so without the coercion of the government. When individuals choose to give, they tend to make sure that their money and time will be put to good use instead of giving money to another government whether corrupt or not. When we give money to another nation, with the money, the United States feels that they are then entitled to tell the nation on the receiving end of the funds transfer what to do and how to run it's country and they may feel they have to listen to us politely or risk getting cut off in the future. With us no longer giving other nations money, they are free to tell us to mind our own business; after all, who are we to tell another country what to do. If Israel wants to bomb Iran, who are we to say no. Israel has its own interests to think about. In addition to cutting all foreign aid, I would also start closing military bases overseas and bring the troops home. In an age when we can deploy troops around the world in a matter of hours, and a Navy that is always out to sea in all corners of the globe, we don't need to occupy any foreign nation. Some may call me an isolationist, I say I am a non-interventionist.
One of our great founding fathers warned of being drawn into foreign entanglements. We were also warned that when we ally ourselves with another nation, we also get their enemies. Lastly, we were also warned not to go searching abroad for dragons to slay. It would be wise for us to take heed and follow the advice of our founders. If you are believe that we should be involved in conflicts across the globe, then at least you should demand an official declaration of war. If you want to allow Congress to give that power to the President, the Constitution must be amended to strip them of that power and give it to the President but I warn you, that in doing so, you give the President almost dictatorial powers.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Disclose Act
Over the past couple of weeks there has been more talk about Congress passing the Disclose Act. This would, in effect, give the federal government the ability to say what is acceptable both in print and online through the FCC. I don't think that I'm being paranoid in saying or thinking that this will be used more strictly against those who are critical of the government than those who paint a favorable picture of the government. I know I'm beating a dead horse in asking the question, "What part of 'Congress shall make no law...' don't they understand?" If there was one type of speech or print that they would have wanted to protect over another, it would have been political speech. I don't think they would think political speech was more important than any other speech but if you look at what the Brits tried to do in the lead up to the revolt and during the war, you can understand why the amendments that ultimately became our Bill of Rights were so important. The States had just finished fighting a war that freed them from a tyrannical government that violated those rights.
If you read the third amendment, it deals with "quartering" troops. This may seem like an odd amendment to us but that was a concern to our founders. Why? That was an injustice that was forced upon the colonists before and during the revolution. Read all amendments and ask yourself, why were they so important that the founders felt the need to state unequivocally that these were areas that the federal government could not make laws about. The emphasis is federal government for a reason. The Constitution is directed only on the federal government not the States. The fourteenth amendment, contrary to popular opinion, does not make the amendments and provisions applicable to the States this is why they have their own State constitutions.
If you read the third amendment, it deals with "quartering" troops. This may seem like an odd amendment to us but that was a concern to our founders. Why? That was an injustice that was forced upon the colonists before and during the revolution. Read all amendments and ask yourself, why were they so important that the founders felt the need to state unequivocally that these were areas that the federal government could not make laws about. The emphasis is federal government for a reason. The Constitution is directed only on the federal government not the States. The fourteenth amendment, contrary to popular opinion, does not make the amendments and provisions applicable to the States this is why they have their own State constitutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)