The Choices of the Crisis At Hand

The Civil War was the coup d'dtat for the Whig party. Having dwindled after the demise of their major leaders and losing of major elections the final death knell seemed to sound within the devisiveness of the war.

When lowered to its common denominator, the current "civil war" is the battle between European style socialism and the American free enterprise system. There are many twists and turns involved due to the complexity of the issues and their intertwining in the political structure. Hanging in the balance is individual liberty and the accompanying expression of ingenuity and accomplishment that it spawns and the top down elitist systems that are socialism.

In my observation the crisis has accelerated exponentially with the two year tenure of the progressives in control of the presidency and both houses of congress. Blame the prior administration as they may they cannot negate the fact that both houses of congress have been in Democratic hands since the 2006 elections. All legislation emanates from congress and to my recollection President Bush only vetoed one bill in that time, So, though not prominently publicized, the "Dem's" have controlled virtually all of the legislation produced in the last four and a half years.

All honest parties recognize that the current proposed budget of roughly $3.6 trillion with an estimated $1.6 trillion dollar deficit is unsustainable. They know that a $14.3 trillion dollar deficit which with current spending projections can only rise creates a situation that is unsustainable. All concerned know that the current entitlement programs which, less defense, represents about half of the budget, faced with the existing demographics, is unsustainable as it is now structured.

The question for both parties approaching the 2012 election, is whether they play politics with the situation to achieve a hopeful victory, or do they present solutions which give hope of solutions that address the problems as well as are fiscally sustainable. We're seeing indications of that. Thanks to Rep Paul Ryan, the Republicans are attempting to present plans to address these problems, especially entitlements, in a serious manner. And thanks to the GOP leadership, they have held their ground in related votes, in the face of intimidation and scare mongering. The Democrats have not produced their mandated budget which is over seven hundred days in arrears, but have only answered with finger pointing, negativity and fantasy ads of old ladies being pushed over a cliff.

A plus for the nation is the apparent awaking of the rank and file voter. Poll after poll verifies the fear of this group of voters as spending and debt crisis becomes more apparent The task the GOP faces is articulating the substance of their position. This consists of defining the problems in terms understandable to them. Joe Six Pack understands, "if you make $50,000 a year and spend $75,000, something bad is going to happen?". You don't have to get into economic theory.
Next it would help to say that this is their initial attempt and if the Democrats will put their plan for this issue on the table, we can debate them openly and with the accreditation of the voters, attempt to do the best to select an approach that is best for the country. And thirdly, which is probably the most important to the voters, is to take your stand unabashedly, boldly, and with confidence. Donald Trump's main appeal was that he defined some of the problems and attacked them boldly. The same with Cris Christie. And they didn't back up. The awakened citizen is
saying to congress, "don't just stand there, do something".
Back to the Whigs. This financial crisis is the current equivalent to the Civil War. The party that loses the hearts and minds of the voters in the addressing of these major issues is doomed to oblivion. If the Democrats prevail and we have four more years of progressive legislation and executive edicts, our present concept of government and many of our individual liberties will be on the road to extinction. If my vision is correct, the inevitable results caused by the basic laws of economics will bring a crash which will by a popular demand for stability, usher in a radical authoritative regime.

If the Republicans stick with a conservative approach which the people understand and accept and win the election, including the Senate and Presidency, and if stand fast on the implementation to fix the problems, rather than posturing for political gain. And the size of government can be reduced drastically and the forces of the free enterprise system be unleashed, the United States of America can return to solvency and greatness.

Term Limits - Has It's Time Come

A serious problem in this country is becoming more apparent lately, if current polling implications are correct. In recent polls taken by Scott Rasmussen of 1000 likely voters, only 29% thought the country was headed in the right direction, 23% felt congress’ actions had the consent of the governed and 53% of those polled thought that elections were rigged in favor of the incumbent. This covered polls taken in one week! If this is indicative of the feelings of constituents, then what is the motivation for congress to do the things that they do?

With a quick Google I found that of the current congress, 10 members have served over 36 years. Of the current House 26 had twenty or more years there and in the Senate, 21 had twenty or more years. I can only guess but it would be my strong inclination to say that getting reelected was if not at the top of the list, very close. I love my representative and his voting is representative of the feelings of the residents of this district. However if one leaves private life and devotes over ten or fifteen years to the public sector, one would have to think about it as a career. All of us know that if you have a career it logically follows that you have ambition. If you have ambition the main focus of your endeavor , naturally, is to do what would further your career. In politics the first necessity of furthering your career is to stay in office – keep getting re-elected. What are the requisites of doing this? High among them are raising money and getting larger numbers of people to vote for you. How can you accomplish this? Do favors, help pass legislation, etc., that either favor a group of people or help line some people’s pockets. You have now reached the point that your constituents – “the ones that brung’ you”- are down the ladder in the hierarchy of concerns. A noticeable residual effect is that access to your representative gets harder and usually amounts to generic emails touting his accomplishments, or a quick nod at a fund raiser. This is not what our founding fathers envisioned.

I would raise the question, isn’t it time we revisited the need for term limits. What duration that would encompass would be debatable. For starters I would feel two terms in the Senate or six terms in the House - twelve years - would be a place to start. With the average age of our representatives this would seem to allow for public service and a private career. Many in the Senate, though I have no data to support it, would appear to have already advanced in some private endeavor before election to a point that returning to private life would still be feasible and many who entered politics later would actually be close to retirement age. They have a very generous retirement package now and if it even had to be sweetened some, it would pay off for the taxpayers. In addition, the change should mandate no employment in lobbying or otherwise trying to influence action by congress as a whole or by individual legislators. Other restrictions should be considered to make their break with the political structure as complete as possible.

This will not be originated in congress. Self interest is a normal human reaction. The special interests and lobbyists will not like it. They have a lot invested in time and money in gaining the ear of the powerful. It is also the destination of many in congress upon leaving. It would have to probably be done by constitutional amendment, or as happens some times, the threat of one.

Until serving in government again becomes a temporary public service with the main objective being to further the lives and well being of the ones represented as a whole, and with the probability of going back to the area you represent and living under the laws that you pass becomes a reality, the idea of our country having a truly effectual form of representative government will not come to pass.

These thoughts provide more questions than answers, but in the situation the country is in now and with a very noticeable awakening of interest by the average voter, it is certainly one whose time has come.

Return to Federalism

A relatively under reported phenomenon is afoot in the country. It is interwoven in the political philosophy of the tea party movement. There is an awareness of it evidenced in most of the country except Washington, D.C. The concept isn't new - in fact it was the mortar used in constructing the constitution. This concept is republicanism. It has been encroached on little by little over the years. The Progressive movement, starting at the turn of the last century, has worked hard to negate its legitimacy in our country's form of government. To do so would shred the constitution and berate our nation's history and tradition. "We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands." The Republic- that association of sovereign states, has been overpowered by an ever growing central government.

There is no doubt in studying the development of the Constitution that a group of states realizing the limitations of trying to deal with each other as well as foreign nations, were willing to give up some of their sovereign rights to form a nation - a union of individual states. There is absolutely no doubt that they were doing so in a limited way ceding only specified rights which they felt necessary for successful union, but retaining all others to the states themselves. Article I, Sec 8 of the Constitution enumerates 18 powers given to the national government. The first ten amendments , a "bill of rights" was a condition of ratification by several states. Amendment X states, "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." It seems obvious that the States continue to be legitimate entities, that they have ceded only limited powers to the federal government, and that unless voluntarily relinquished through valid legislation or the amendment process, are to be maintained by the States.

The harsh, progressive agenda of the Obama regime may have awakened a much needed giant in this country - Federalism. I would use the term "states rights" except that the term was co-opted in the sixties in relation to integration and the race issue. Too, federalism is intrinsic to the founding of the country. As noted above the uniting of states to form this great country had no contemplation of capitulating all their rights and treasure to a central government. After the last election nearly sixty percent of the states have a Republican governor. Some twenty-one state houses saw one or both chambers swing to Republican. Two issues, "Obamacare" and the overreaching and tyrannical regulations being promulgated by Federal Agencies such as the EPA, FDA, FCC and HHS designed to circumvent the will of the people and their elected representatives, have sparked many states to start fighting back using the judicial system. On Obamacare twenty-six states united in suing against the individual mandate in a Florida court. Two other states, Virginia and Missouri have filed separate suits. States such as Texas have challenged the EPA's intervening in the issue of pollution permits. Some legislatures have passed or are contemplating passing legislation which reinforces the right of the states in certain issues to take precedence in areas either constitutionally or traditionally left to their jurisdiction.

It is important to the country that in this process the courts address the limitations of the federal government and their seemingly unlimited usurping of authority normally left to the states.
This may be the last great hope for return to limited constitutional government.

Size of the Federal Government

Today the President proposed a two year pay freeze on the salaries of civilian government workers. To quote the old Saturday Night Live skit, "well isn't that special". USA Today noted that the average government employee receives in pay and benefits about 150% the pay of their private sector counterpart. The number of government employees making $150,000 or more has increased ten fold in the past five years and doubled in the past two. By the way, who has been in control of the federal purse during those years. The House majority leader, at least by inference, has noted that the federal work force is vital to the country. We have added another 100,000 or so in the last couple of years.

All the while poll after poll has shown that the American taxpayer feels government is way too big and that it continues to grow while the private sector struggles. What are we getting in return for the money spent? Most obviously the main product of big government is its attack on individual freedom. Article I, Sec. 8 of the constitution enumerates eighteen powers given to the federal government. By the wildest stretch do you see control of the amount of water in your commode, the light bulb you use in your lamp, the caloric intake of your diet, and on and on within those enumerations. This is an attack on your individual rights. It is masked as contributing to your and your families security. With freedom comes risk. People in prison have security. They're fed, clothed and attended to medically, but they are not free.

In the first place much of what the government has attempted to do, neglecting their right to do it, is demeaning to the citizens. Where has government shown its superiority in judgment and intellect in running your business? Is it in the post office. If the legislation protecting it from competition were repealed, private businesses such as FedEx and UPS would run them out of business in six months. Other than its specifically enumerated functions has the federal government or the state government shown superior expertise and achievement over private enterprise. In your private life is the government superior to the parent in monitoring your child's diet. In the realm of the law of unintended consequences, did they foresee that with a smaller commode tank you would just flush twice, using more water than the larger tank. Did they foresee that their was more danger in the disposition of the new light bulbs than the energy saved by trashing the old. Were they smart enough to know that the amount of energy used to produce a gallon of ethanol was greater than the amount saved as an additive, ignoring the impact on food prices as the farm industry swapped food production for government subsidized ethanol production. It couldn't be that special interests benefitted at the expense of the consumer could it.

Probably a fourth or more of what the government does could be outsourced to the private sector and in the context of competitive free enterprise, be done more efficiently and more cost effectively. If we want to recover from the current economic malaise, we should reduce the size of government, de-fang its onerous regulatory tentacles, and let the miracles of the free enterprise system restore the country to the giant growth engine that it has been.

Wake up Rip!

Rip Van Winkle wakes up after 25 years. When he went to sleep Ronald Reagan was President. The country was strong economically and militarily. She was a leader of the free world. Communism was reeling and losing ground politically and economically.

Boy does Rip get a shock! He turns on the news or probably gets on the internet since the main stream press has quit journalism in favor of propaganda. The revelations -

- Scientists have lied and fudged data to support their position on global warming - and to protect the big federal grant money coming their way.

- The vote of a United States Senator has been bought for $300 million of the taxpayer's money destined for her state. Additionally, she corrects with pride, the original disclosure that it was only $100 million.

- The Chinese communists are lecturing us on fiscal responsibility.

- Federal spending is out of control - TARP, stimulus, omnibus spending bill, cash for klunkers, cap and trade and the push for nationalized health care - of course not under that name.

- Gamesmanship by the Democratic controlled Congress to misinform the public as to the cost of the health care bill by taking payments to doctors out of the legislation and by including tax increases during a ten year period and expenditures for five or six.

- Unelected and unconfirmed Czars exerting huge power over virtually all areas of the economy.
Many of these Presidential picks have either communist leanings and/or affiliations as reflected in their recorded speeches and publications.

- The taking over of a major auto manufacturer. Setting caps on salaries in the private sector.

All of this and much, much more, from a President who campaigned on transparency, bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility.

Our founding fathers stressed the need for virtue by the citizen's in order to make our system of government work. Do we have enough character, morality and love of freedom to ward off the wave of collectivism being thrust upon us? I don't know . I pray that we do. I pray that the good solid citizen's of this country will rise up civilly and say enough is enough at the polls while we still have the ability to do so.

If you think that our form of government can't fall, I invite you to seriously look at the events in Italy , Russia and Germany during the early twentieth century. I have, and the similarity in many areas with what is going on today are frightening.

As Patrick Henry said, "what we gain too easily, we esteem too lightly." Lest we forget.

The Blame Game

A day hardly passes that we don't hear from the Obama administration cries about the mess which they inherited from the Bush administration. My, but memories become short and selective when it is convenient.

In the election of 2006 both houses of congress came under the control of the democrats. If my memory is correct all legislation is passed by the congress. All spending is authorized by the congress. I think it is then reasonable to ask who really was in control of the economy the last two years of the Bush administration?
I think President Bush only vetoed one bill during that time - the CHIPS program expansion.

When the democrats took control of congress in 2007, the Dow was about 12,500. GDP had grown about 4.8%. The national debt was less than nine trillion and unemployment was at 4.6%. Inflation was in check with the CPI around 2.5%. This hardly sounds like a mess to me.

All of the spending bonanza passed in 2008 was authorized by a democratic congress. TARP was passed by a democratic congress. I am not trying to say that the republicans were not complicit in what went on. President Bush should have used the veto pen more often or, at least, the bully pulpit of his office more effectively to reign in spending. His political myopia on the war and national defense is good in that we won in Iraq - despite what the media says - and at home we were free from further attack. It was bad in that more attention on what was happening at home was lacking by the country's chief executive.

In any crisis there is going to be plenty of blame to go around. To plead innocence for the so called mess that developed when you controlled both houses of congress is hypocrisy taken to a new level.

Some Questions for the President

Those of us in "the great unwashed" have some questions we would like answered. I'm sure there is an academic response but, humor me, lets just revert to logic.

Questions for the governing elite-

1) If there is a great amount of fraud and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid and the President knows how to correct it, why doesn't he do it? Why wait for sweeping new legislation? If he can and will fix it now, the voters will listen to his new proposals.

2) The President says that the economy has bottomed out and is getting better. The stimulus was by definition, the vehicle of doing this. Only about 25% of the stimulus money has actually flowed into the economy. If he fixed it with 25 % why doesn't he return the other 75% to the folks he took it from. ( Yes, took!)

3) The President says there will not be rationing. If there are 30 million people ( the revised number) coming into the system and the same number (or less) of doctors, nurses and hospitals, how will there be the same amount of services available for the larger number without cutting someone off - either by not providing the service or by stringing it out ( i.e., long lines and adverse conditions for waiting).

4) If the health plan is so great, why are Congress, the Unions and other politically favored groups excluded from participation.

5) Some 81 % in a recent poll showed satisfaction with their current plan. Why should the system be torn apart and rebuilt for the 19%.

6) The President has referred to people being denied health care, yet it is the law that emergency rooms have to treat all, regardless of ability to pay. Isn't this a contradiction in terms.

7) The CBO estimates a cost in ten years of up to 1.6 trillion dollars. Using the figures which government usually uses for decision making, how will the proposed legislation produce a bill that the President can sign given his pledge not to sign a bill that increases the deficit.

8) If the President will not accept earmarks from Congress, why did he sign a budget reconciliation bill that had thousands?

9) Name a government run enterprise that is running in the black and surpassing private enterprises in efficiency and cost?

10) If Medicare is going broke, Medicaid is going broke, Social Security is going broke, Fannie and Freddie are in trouble, and the Post Office is predicting a two billion dollar plus deficit, why should any sane person think that the government can run a national health program. Have you been to a VA or Indian Reservation health facility lately? I have.

11) If we're in trouble from global warming why has the earth's temperature cooled over the last ten years.

12) Why should a day in which this nation was attacked for the first time since 1812, be commemorated by a day of service.

13) When the polls show 52- 80 percent, depending on the policy, to be opposed to the President's proposals, why is he pressing them.

I don't think asking for an answer to these questions, some or all of which have been considered by many citizens other than me, is asking too much.

I won't hold my breath for an answer. I hope this doesn't place me on the "Enemy's List".