Friday, December 17, 2010

Yes, Virginia,…

there is a Santa Claus, aka the U.S. Congress, which last night enacted a law extending the Bush tax cuts, and adding over $200 billion in Christmas presents to Americans. Of course, eventually, Americans will have to pay for those presents.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Is the Pistol Cocked?

Has the Republican Party in this lame-duck session of Congress cocked the gun that it will use to shoot off its foot in the new session?

Do I, like Dalrymple, misunderstand what just happened? Did the Republicans cut a deal with Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts in a bill that includes $246 billion in new spending? Are these the same Republicans who campaign on cutting spending and limiting the size and power of government? The same Republicans who say they are willing to work with the opposition, but not to the extent of compromising their “core” principles?

Okay, extending the Bush tax cuts I can see—Republicans have been saying all along that they would do that. And raising the exemption for estate tax while setting the rate at 35% is something somewhat in line with what they’ve said all along, never mind that it’s not quite eliminating the estate tax, something many Republicans have advocated.

But extension of the unemployment benefits for 13 months, a Social Security tax break, extension of individual tax credits and a plethora of business tax breaks, all add up to new spending because there is no provision for spending cuts to offset any of that.

Is Obama smarter than we think? By agreeing to the “compromise” bill, could he be setting the Republicans up for the 2012 campaign when he will argue that the Republicans agreed to their own stimulus bill, so why are they criticizing his?

As I wrote in a previous post, Republican control of Congress is unlikely to do anything to stop the rampant expansion of federal power and the loss of Americans’ liberties? That is why a drastic, fundamental change in government through constitutional amendments is needed.

Meanwhile, will the Republican Party fire that cocked pistol at its foot in January, and suffer in 2012 the same fate as the Democratic Party in 2010? It's a better-than-even chance, I think.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Dalrymple Should Read This

Dalrymple should read Jedediah Bila's piece, "The Left's Unjust 'Justice'" in Human Events, an excerpt of which follows:
When it comes to economic injustice, why is it that the Left is blind to the injustice of about 47% of Americans not paying federal income taxes for 2009, as was projectedin April by the Tax Policy Center? Why do leftists not consider it unjust that in 2007, the top 1% of taxpayers paid over 40% of federal income taxes, a greater share than that paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers combined?
Perhaps because it’s not really about justice at all. It’s about condoning theft in the name of socialist-style “equality;” an equality that would disincentivize workers, undermine prosperity, and—to borrow a phrasefrom Barack Obama—lead to “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Really, Dalrymple, read the piece!

Dalrymple Learns about Politics and Economics

“Uh, sir, do you have a minute?"

“Sure, Dalrymple, what can I help you with?”

“Sir, I don’t fully understand some things we are working on. Like why we want to raise taxes on folks making $250,000 and over.”

“Dalrymple, you don’t understand economics, but I’ll explain. First of all, those people are despicable. They clearly don’t deserve to make that much, and they make it by stepping on the backs of the middle class. Don’t you just burn when someone you know buys a big yacht, a big SUV, or vacations in the Caribbean or the Greek Isles? You know they don’t deserve it! They’re so bad, they probably should be killed, but we can’t condone that, of course. We can severely punish them by making them pay high income tax.”

“But, sir, don’t many of those people own small businesses that employ people and circulate money in the economy? If they have to pay higher taxes, won’t that hurt those businesses and result in layoffs or reduced hiring?”

“Dalrymple, of course that’s what they’ll tell you, but really, they just don’t want to pay their fair share. And we need the money, Dalrymple.”

“I can understand that, sir. We want to pay down the nearly $14 trillion debt, right?"

“Dalrymple, Dalrymple. You don’t understand the first thing about economics, do you? Look, what good will it do for the middle class if we pay the debt down? What’s more important is that we have all that additional tax money from the fat cats so we can enact more social programs that benefit the middle class.”

“But, sir, don’t programs like that really benefit the lower class rather than the middle class?"

“Yes, Dalrymple, but we call the beneficiaries ‘middle class.’ And don’t say, ‘lower class.’ That’s offensive.”

“I don’t understand, sir.”

“The middle class is the biggest social and economic class, so we have to make them think that we’re working to help them, because they have the most votes, you see. It will not do to have the middle class think that we’re just trying to help the working class.”

“Okay, back to the tax on the rich, sir. You said they don’t want to pay their fair share—but is it fair to raise taxes on one income group and not all?”

“Oh, Dalrymple, you still don’t get it. They make much more, so they should pay much more—it’s that simple.”

“But because they make much more, wouldn’t they pay much more even if they were taxed at the same rate as everyone else?"

“Yes, Dalrymple, but not enough for us to do our good work! Just to pay the interest on the social programs takes a great deal of money. When you add Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, TARP, other mandatory expenses and interest, why that’s 65% of the federal budget![1] We may even have to raise taxes for the middle class to pay for all that.”

“I thought you said we were trying to help the middle class?”

“No, Dalrymple, I said that we want the middle class to think that we’re trying to help them. You see the difference, don’t you?”

“Well, yes, but…”

“One word, Dalrymple: votes. They have the votes. That’s what it’s all about.”

“Uh, I see. But wouldn’t taxing the rich at the same rate as everyone be fair? Wouldn’t those small businesses then be able to expand and create more economic wealth that would raise government revenue? If the rich are able to spend their money to help stimulate the economy wouldn’t that achieve what we want?”

“Dalrymple, you’re so naïve. If we don’t take their money from them, they certainly won’t spend it on social programs for the poor. That’s why we have to take their money away from them, so we can spend it where it’s needed, you see.”

“If they spend it and stimulate the economy, and spend it to expand business and hire more people, then wouldn’t there be fewer poor people?"

“Of course, Dalrymple. But we don’t want that, do we. Getting votes means pitting the poor and middle class against the rich. If more poor people get jobs and move into the middle class, and more middle-class people make more money and become rich, then where is our political base? Your thinking is just wrong-headed, Dalrymple.”

“Sir, you and your colleagues here make much more than $250,000, so you want to pay more tax?"

“No, we’ll be exempt, Dalrymple. After all, we are the ones who deserve to be rich, because we do so much good for everyone. Without us to impose order on this regrettable capitalist economic system we have, who knows what might happen?”

“Oh, sorry, sir. This is all very complicated, and I didn’t see your side of it before.”

“I’m happy to set you straight, Dalrymple. What are the other things you’re concerned about?"

“Maybe I’d better just leave them for another time, sir, and absorb what you explained to me. By the way, what do you want me to buy for you to give to your wife for Christmas?”

“Dalrymple, don’t use that word—it could offend some people. Just say ‘holidays.”


[1] White House Office of Management and Budget, 2009 national budget.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Don't Punish the Pigs!

For the past couple of days I have listened to the news about the WikiLeaks release of more classified U.S. government documents, and heard several people calling for Julian Assange to be arrested--one person even said he should be executed--and most said that his intention was to harm the United States.

If Assange (who is Australian by the way) hacked into government computers, or if he stole the documents some other way, or paid someone to do it, then he should be prosecuted. But not because he published the documents on the web. Is this still America, or did I wake up in another country? Where was I when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was repealed? When did folks begin believing in censorship?

If someone lets the pigs out and they tear up the garden, do we punish the pigs? The leak of the documents may have embarrassed, even harmed, the U.S. government. But what should really embarrass the government is that someone within its ranks supplied WikiLeaks with classified documents. Whoever did that broke the law. If all Assange did was to receive the documents and publish them, well, that's the government's fault for not having adequate security for its secrets.

Don't punish the pigs.

Monday, December 6, 2010

"Repeal Amendment" Just Doesn't Go Far Enough

The problem is that the national government of the United States, including its constituent entities, the Congress, the executive branch, the judicial branch and all of its bureaucracies, is daily trampling on the rights and liberties of Americans, and is out of our control.

Randy Barnett and William J. Howell, in an article entitled The Case for a "Repeal Amendment" that appeared September 16, 2010, in The Wall Street Journal and was reprinted on the Cato Institute website, make their case for a proposed amendment that the Virginia legislature will consider. They write:
In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple:
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.
They go on to explain that
Congress could re-enact a repealed measure if it really feels that two-thirds of state legislatures are out of touch with popular sentiment. And congressional re-enactment would require merely a simple majority. In effect, with repeal power the states could force Congress to take a second look at a controversial law.
They summarize their case as follows:
The Repeal Amendment would help restore the ability of states to protect the powers "reserved to the states" noted in the 10th Amendment. And it would provide citizens another political avenue to protect the "rights ... retained by the people" to which the Ninth Amendment refers. In short, the amendment provides a new political check on the threat to American liberties posed by a runaway federal government. And checking abuses of power is what the written Constitution is all about.
I have no quarrel with the intent of such a proposed amendment; indeed, I proposed a similar amendment in my blog post of October 18, Prescription for (Real) Hope and Change, that would provide for, upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a veto by the states of Congressional spending in excess of a set percentage of GDP (it would be part of a set of proposed amendments). But the proposed "Repeal Amendment" would not go far enough to address the problems with our federal system. It is clear that a provision allowing Congress to re-enact a repealed measure is just a sop to Congress to make it look upon the amendment more favorably. Only a far-reaching set of amendments to the Constitution like the ones I propose ultimately will curtail the ever-expanding power of the national government and its use of that power to take away our liberty.

Barnett and Howell acknowledge that in writing the following:
The Repeal Amendment alone will not cure all the current problems with federal power. Getting two-thirds of state legislatures to agree on overturning a federal law will not be easy and will only happen if a law is highly unpopular.
My hope is that influential politicians at the state and national levels will begin to think outside the box and consider proposing an effective set of amendments to put things right. After all, considering how difficult it is to get one amendment adopted, why not go for broke and try for a whole set?

Reapportionment Should Just be Reapportionment, Not the Holy Grail


Now that the Republicans have control of many of the state legislatures, they will be able to reapportion to their advantage based on the 2010 census. Is that a good thing? Obviously, for the Republican Party it is. But the power of incumbency is a real problem for all of us.

Dick Morris, an astute political strategist, in his blog post Reapportioner's Dilemma: Go for the Extra Seats, analyzes the potential for Republicans:
The freshmen elected in 2010 will very likely benefit from the same Republican wind at their backs in 2012 as animated their candidacies this year. While we cannot tell the future, we know that Obama is in rough shape and his party is in worse repute. If the Republicans don’t blow it in Congress — a tall order — the 2012 elections should be good for the Republicans. Remember: It took the Democrats two elections (2006 and 2008) to fashion their dominant majorities in Congress. It will take Republicans two cycles to complete the work. There is no need to bend and strain to give these freshmen great districts. A little tinkering can give them a decisive edge and they may not need any at all in 2012.
After that, the new Republican Congressmen have a lot less to worry about. After two successful elections, it is very hard to dislodge an incumbent Congressman. Unless they face a 2010-style tsunami, they are likely to stay in office for a long time. And, if another tsunami comes — this time with the wind favoring the Democrats — district lines won’t make much difference (see the results of 2010!)
He advises the Republican Party to take advantage of the opportunity to solidify control through reapportionment:
It is always easy to listen to the voices of those who are in office — the newly elected incumbents — but state legislative leaders must strain to hear the voices of those who did not win, but could win next time, given good lines. We must not miss this incredible opportunity to finish the task of 2010 and convert a vast number of House seats to the Republican Party, hopefully for a decade.
The problem is that they may stay in office for a long time! Once a Congressman or a Senator wins election, from that point on the overriding consideration in all that he or she does is reelection. As soon as the candidate is elected, the campaign for reelection must begin. Getting reelected means raising more and more money: campaigns are expensive and becoming more so. So the money-raising effort requires a great deal of the incumbent's time and attention, at the expense of attending to the business of the nation. Moreover, we suspect that a number of the incumbents are tempted to line their pockets while seeking reelection funds.

Both the desire to get reelection money and/or to line their own pockets leads incumbents to cozy-up to lobbyists, who, in providing what an incumbent needs, gain an inordinate amount of influence over the incumbents. The result is that legislation is strongly influenced by lobbyists--actually written by lobbyists in some cases. Incumbents don't even need to read a bill if the lobbyists to whom they are beholding want them to vote for it.

Incumbency has other drawbacks. We generally look to private business leaders to exercise efficiency, effectiveness and good judgement in running their businesses. But political incumbents spend a great deal of time raising campaign money and not as much time attending to the business of the body to which they are elected. As a result, incumbents often do not exercise good judgement in voting for bills.

And what passes for effectiveness is how much earmark or other money the incumbent can direct to his or her district or state. Yes, Congressmen are elected to represent their districts, and Senators their states, but to do so with the goal of doing what is best for the United States as a whole. Creating million-or-billion-dollar earmarks paid for by all taxpayers to benefit a certain district or state--and more specifically, certain individuals or business entities within those districts or states--while the nation is trillions of dollars in debt is ill-advised at best, probably immoral.

Incumbency, therefore, is a problem in our system of government. If Congressmen and Senators only served one term, they would not be concerned with raising money for reelection--lessening the influence of lobbyists--and would have more time to devote to what they were elected for in the first place. In the event, those elected would not be able to make careers of the office.

As things are, controlling reapportionment is the holy grail for political parties. As things should be, reapportionment would be much less important.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Jindal is on the Right Track

Jennifer Epstein of Politico reports that in an an interview with human events, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wants to make Congress part-time.
“We used to pay farmers not to grow crops, let's pay congressmen to stay out of Washington, D.C.,” Jindal said in an interview with Human Events. “Mark Twain said that our liberty, our wallets were safest when the legislature's not in session.”
He is on the right track. In my post Prescription for (Real) Hope and Change of October 18, I listed a number of changes that could make government work better. Governor Jindal's suggestions parallel mine, to some extent.

I'm happy to know that there are those in politics who recognize that a real fix for government may have to involve more drastic changes than simple Congressional rules changes.

Hurrah for those political leaders who, like Governor Jindal, push for real changes to protect our liberties!

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Be Careful Where You Click

This tweet, from The Economist, "Long Life Spam: The Changing Landscape of Online Fraud" (Nov. 18, 2010), got me thinking about the chances we take when we surf the web with abandon:
Spammers also have become more sophisticated about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were shady, with most of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over 20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail spam.
Facebook apparently is not immune to online fraud either. Some "friends," may be anything but, even if we share mutual friends. There is so much interesting information on the web that the temptation is to wildly click from link to link to dine on the smörgåsbord. I suppose we do so at our peril. Thankfully, because I am a techno-idiot, my security software helps to protect me, but clicking on links still is quite risky. Just recently I clicked on a link in a website I trusted and found myself at a site advertising sex paraphenalia--not what I expected. (An aside: I don't know what some of that stuff is used for.)

But such is the attraction to cyber-travel that I'm sure one day I will click on something and see my monitor begin to melt, and hear the death-rattle of my CPU. NB: The link in this post is safe, if you can believe me.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Appear Nekkid or be Felt Up!

TSA says that the folks who read the full-nekkid-body scanners are in separate rooms so nobody else can see the nekkid pictures of the people being scanned, and that the scanner readers can’t see the nekkid people’s heads, and that the nekkid pictures are deleted after people go through the scanners.

Well, pardon me if I think that’s bullshit. How do we know TSA is telling the truth? Because it tells us it is? They need to let me in a nekkid-scanner room so I can see for myself (and if I get a little peek at a nekkid woman, well, no biggie—just think of me as another TSA voyeur). And do you really think that the TSA folks aren’t going to keep just a few of those nekkid pictures? Ha. They’re probably on YouTube right now.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano suggests—and I’m paraphrasing—that we not get our knickers (the ones TSA can see through) in a twist; if we don’t want anyone to see us nekkid, then we have the option of a letting TSA employees feel us up instead (and from the way I heard a TSA groper describe in advance the groping procedure, some folks are gonna get a little charge out of that). Or we can drive, take a Greyhound or AMTRAK.

Homeland Security argues that violating the rights and sensibilities of Americans is necessary to protect us all from potential terrorist-engineered air disasters, never mind that air travel is always risky, even without terrorist activity. And what about terrorists getting on buses and trains? In the future will TSA make us go through nekkid scanners and submit to body pat-downs to get on a bus or train? And maybe terrorists will resort to hijacking cars, too. How can the administration keep us safe from that? Will we have to drive our vehicles through TSA full-nekkid-auto scanners, or have TSA auto-gropers crawl through our cars before we can leave the driveway?

Will Homeland Security put scanner and groper stations on each city block to prevent terrorists from walking down our streets? Will it put scanner and groper stations at the entrances to buildings? Where will this all stop? Ultimately, will Homeland Security make us walk around nekkid so we can’t hide anything?

Will Americans just forfeit their rights and liberties and submit to humiliation at the hands and scanners of TSA agents in the hope of uncertain protection against attacks by inept would-be terrorists? It is important to note that terrorist attacks have been foiled more by the terrorists themselves than by our security measures.

But I think I know how to get the administration to rethink the nekkid-scanner/government-groper policy. We just need to point out that they’ll be violating the rights, sensibilities and religious beliefs of potential terrorists by looking at them nekkid or subjecting them to full-body feel-ups, and I’m sure the administration will change the policy. After all, the administration has demonstrated more concern about the rights of non-citizens and alleged terrorists than those of air-traveling American citizens.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Smut Provides Advice

Last night I was complaining to no one in particular--only my black Labrador Retrievers Smut and Mischief were with me--about how miserable I felt because of a nasty cold.

Smut, attired in his favorite silk smoking jacket and fez, was sitting in an armchair quietly listening. Finally, tired, no doubt, of my complaining, he leaned back, took a couple of puffs on his cigar, and said, "Well, if you had listened to me yesterday, you could have short-circuited your cold, and you wouldn't be sitting here all miserable and out-of-sorts."

"What did you say to me yesterday?" I asked. "I don't remember."

"That's another thing," Smut replied, after taking a small sip of his favorite whisky. "You just don't listen to me. How often you ignore me when I un-assertively suggest that we go for a walk. Walking is good for you, by the way."

"Yes, but what did you say yesterday?" I asked again. I was quite short with him, I'm afraid.

"No need to get upset," he said calmly, putting his cigar on the edge of the ashtray and leaning forward a little. "I advised you to step out back and eat some grass. That's what I do when I feel bad, you know. It works very well." He sat back, crossed his legs, picked up his whisky and smiled at me.

"That doesn't work for humans," I said, laughing at him.

Smut puffed on his cigar again and, raising an eyebrow, asked, "How do you know? Have you ever done it?"

"Of course not," I replied derisively, sniffing and coughing.

Exhaling a cloud of smoke, he said with a distinctively superior air, "There you are, then. Don't look down your nose at me."

Quick--Turn the Teleprompter Back On

In a White House ceremony today President Obama presented a Congressional Medal of Honor to Army Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta. While lauding Sgt. Giunta, the president said, “Now, I’m going off script for a moment,” at which point the sphincters of a dozen White House advisors and handlers no doubt (and perhaps audibly) tightened, and their hearts collectively jumped within their chests. We offer prayers for their quick recovery.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Pass the Krispy Kremes, Please!

Did you know that Pfizer forces pills down people’s throats, Smith & Wesson shoots people and General Dynamics wages war? Yep. Some regulation-loving, responsibility averse do-gooders allege that drug manufacturers are responsible for people’s addictions, firearms manufacturers are responsible for gun deaths and weapons manufacturers are responsible for wars. Law suits filed against companies like the ones mentioned have resulted in large awards for plaintiffs. Reference what happened to tobacco companies.

Do these people realize how stupid that is? Doesn’t someone have to pull a trigger? Doesn’t someone have to put the pills in his mouth and swallow? Doesn’t someone have to push a button to fire a missile? Could hot smoke from burning vegetation drawn deeply into your lungs possibly be harmful?

Today I caught the last few minutes of the Diane Rhem Show on NPR. The topic was “DNA Sequencing & Personal Genomics (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-11-03/dna-sequencing-personal-genomics).” I didn’t hear the introduction of the guests, so I don’t know which one commented—I’m paraphrasing here—that driving home past 10 fast-food restaurants also put him at risk for obesity.

Now, I suppose that the comment was intended to discount to some extent the role of genetics in obesity, but it sounded as if the speaker were assigning some of the blame for obesity to fast-food restaurants. Indeed, some have alleged that MacDonald’s is a major cause of Americans’ obesity.

That is just anti-capitalist shite. If people didn’t want to buy Big Mac’s, there would be no MacDonalds. “Yes, your honor, I was driving home, minding my own business when Bojangles placed a tractor beam on my vehicle, pulled me in, restrained me, and forced me under threat of anorexia to gnaw all the meat off a fried-chicken leg.” “Well, yes, Judge, I admit, it was pretty tasty.”

Fast-food restaurants (and candy manufacturers, soft-drink companies and—yum!—Krispy Kreme) are not villains—they’re legal businesses that provide what people want, and people want them to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

If you’re overweight and have a grudge against MacDonalds and other fast-food purveyors, don’t eat biggie-sized double quarter pounders! Don’t buy a dozen Krispy Kremes and eat them all! Use your will power and exercise some self-restraint, and take some responsibility for your own actions.

Writing this post has made me pretty hungry. Excuse me please, while I get a cup of coffee and just a half-dozen Krispy Kremes.

What it Means

The outcome of the mid-term election, in which the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats retained control of the Senate, means that Congress will not be able to conduct meaningful business for the next two years. Thank God!

Whenever there is gridlock in Congress, the American people are well-served. Last night I switched television channels frequently to see how the news media treated this emerging change in government. For the most part, the pundits agreed with my conclusion that little would be accomplished in Congress for the next two years, but most did not think that was a good thing. Comments like, "the American people want the government to take care of the business of the people," made me wince. That is why we are IN such a sorry mess: Congress has been conducting business, spending more money, expanding its power over the American people, and generally fucking up everything they address.

As for the message the people sent in the vote last night, it was not that they like Republicans; rather, it was that they want jobs and they don't want government-run health care. Republicans are reading into the result that people want limited federal intrusion into their lives, so that's now the party mantra--not that they believe it or will practice it, given their track record. But in the event, they're wrong; Americans will accept big government if they have jobs and can live fairly well economically. Does anyone think that the Republicans would have won last night if the state of the economy had been good?

So, given that Americans are not as discriminating about the size and power of the federal government as Republicans think, and are not as accepting of socialist health care and higher taxes as the Democrats think, the best we Libertarians can hope for is that Americans keep voting for split government so that neither party gets total control and gets what they want. That's a sorry state of affairs, but we'll take it for now.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Whither the Election?

The election is upon us. Tuesday, about 50% to 55% of those eligible to vote, plus some dead citizens, some non-citizens and others totally ineligible to vote, will head to the polls and cast their votes to be tallied with the votes of those (dead and alive, and otherwise eligible and ineligible) who already have cast votes in the early voting periods, and those who voted by absentee ballot.

The probable outcome: The Republicans will not do as well as they expect, and the Democrats will not do as poorly as they fear.

There are several reasons for this. One is that the news media have beat it into our heads that the Republicans are going to accomplish a sweep this election, so many Republicans who might have voted will not show up at the polls. Conversely, the Democrats will have instilled enough fear in their ranks that they can expect a more vigorous turnout than predicted.

Another reason is that the Democratic Party in particular is quite adept at voter fraud—it will do whatever possible to prevent absentee votes or to conveniently “lose” absentee ballots, on the assumption that the majority will be military personnel who tend to vote Republican; and we have heard numerous reports of people voting straight Republican tickets, only to have the voting machine record the vote for Democrats, a phenomenon explained away by elections commissioners (always Democrats) as “machine malfunctions that of course have been corrected,” who always follow that by claiming that the Republicans are guilty of “voter suppression” (and to be sure, that probably is true).

But the main reason is this: Americans are divided into three main political categories: Liberal (Democratic Party) and Conservative (Republican Party) compete in elections for the votes of a third group: independent Americans, meaning those the pollsters cannot ascribe to one of the other two groups. It is a fluid group generally comprising those who are honestly open-minded about which candidate for whom they’ll vote, those who have become disillusioned with the candidate or party for whom they last voted, those who don’t like either of the two major parties, and those who simply are ignorant of the candidates or issues attending a particular election, but who insist on voting anyway.

There are many more Democrats than Republicans, so elections are decided by the independents. Only if a large number of them vote Republican can Republicans win. In this particular election, a lot of independents who in 2008 voted for Obama are disillusioned with him; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote Republican. Some will, of course, and others just will not vote at all. But the bottom line is that if a significant number of those independents who voted Democratic in 2008 do so again in 2010, the Democrats will not fare as poorly as the media has predicted, especially if even a few Republicans are complacent and fail to vote.

My prediction is that Republicans will gain 60 seats in the House of Representatives to win control, but only 8 Senate seats, not enough to win control of that body.

That will be a good outcome. With Republicans controlling the House, but Democrats controlling the Senate, and a Democratic president who will wield a veto over legislation, the Congress will be able to do little for the next two years. When the Congress is deadlocked, Americans are safer, if only for a little while.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Prescription for (Real) Hope and Change

From continuation of the war in Afghanistan, to passage of a healthcare bill that is the first step toward socialized medicine; and from passage of a wasteful stimulus bill that does nothing to increase jobs but does everything to increase the national debt, to an unparalleled expansion of the national government and a corresponding limitation of the power of the states and of the people, the Congress and the Obama administration have run amok and pissed off the American people. At this writing, Republicans seemed poised to regain a majority in the House of Representatives, and possibly (but not likely) to regain a majority in the Senate. As of 2010, we can do nothing about Barack Obama.

But will Republican control of Congress (and, looking to 2012, a Republican in the White House) do anything to stop the rampant expansion of federal power and the loss of Americans’ liberties? Judging from the actions of Congress and the president during the previous administration, an unqualified “no” is the answer to that question.

Stopping the erosion of freedom and liberty will come only from more fundamental change. Here is my prescription for a healthy America:

1. Amend the Constitution to limit federal spending to a set percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) except in pre-defined emergencies. [This is necessary if the government is to operate within a realistic budget.]

2. Amend the Constitution to provide for, upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a veto by the states of Congressional spending in excess of the set percentage of GDP. [This is a necessary check on Congress’s ability to suspend its rules and ignore the Constitution.]

3. Amend the Constitution to prohibit unfunded federal mandates to the states. [This is necessary for the states to operate within their budgets and not be blindsided by Congressional whim.]

4. Amend the Constitution to mandate a presidential line-item veto of Congressional bills. [This is just common sense; the party in power in the Congress typically protects items in danger of a veto by loading into a bill other items that a president dare not veto.]

5. Amend the Constitution to require that Congress shall pass no law that does not apply equally to the Congress and the people. [e.g., Congress has its own wonderful health care plan of which most Americans could only dream.]

6. Amend the Constitution to require that all congressional bills cite their constitutional authority. [This actually was, and perhaps still is, a proposed House rule]

7. Repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution. [The 17th amendment provided for Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures. The intended effect was to dilute state influence over the Congress. Let’s give some power back to the states so they can exert more influence over Congressional excess. For those who argue that the people should elect Senators, consider that they elect U.S. Representatives and they elect the members of the state legislatures who would in turn elect the Senators]

8. Amend the Constitution to change the presidential term of office from four years to six years; and to prohibit presidents from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.

9. Amend the Constitution to change the term of office of U.S. representatives from two years to four years; and to prohibit representatives from serving more than one four-year term during a lifetime.

10. Amend the Constitution to prohibit U.S. senators from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.

11. Amend the Constitution to restrict Congress from meeting more than six months in every two years. [This provides plenty of time for Congress to address its truly necessary business, and it will force the leaders to set efficient agendas and not to entertain unnecessary and frivolous proposals. It will have the added benefit of giving Congressmen and Senators time to pursue their real livelihoods, and in so doing, more fully understand the effects of laws they pass, and more fully engage with the people.]

Two points: First, there are inevitable arguments against passing the term-limit amendments. Restricting service to one term during a lifetime is drastic—it will destroy continuity in the Congress and White House. Yes, it will. It will prevent career elected officials from catering to lobbyists in order to achieve financial gain, and it will mean that elected officials no longer will be beholding to powerful interests with money for reelection. I listened last week to an NPR interview with U.S. Representative Mike Castle, who was defeated in Delaware’s Republican Congressional Primary by Christine O’Donnell. At the end of the interview, Castle was asked what his plans were for the future. His reply was that he “really had no idea.” That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Congress—those elected anticipate, accurately, that once elected, their incumbency will propel them to a career in the office. Many career Congressmen have no other vocation, and expect to earn a living from Congressional pay and from dubious other remuneration from relationships with lobbyists. Another argument is that the power of the federal government will be curtailed if such amendments pass. Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?

The second point is that it is not likely that two-thirds of both houses of Congress will propose such a set of amendments. Certainly, any set of proposed amendments must come from a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures; or a Constitutional Convention demanded by the people. Ten years ago I would have considered such action either by the states or by the people to be no more than wishful thinking. Now I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility if government continues to ignore the Constitution and the wishes of the people.

Finally, a more light-hearted proposal: Let’s pass an amendment to the Constitution that fines Congressmen and Senators $1,000 for every law passed; and pays them $2,000 for every law repealed. Who knows; the federal code may eventually become readable!

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Hope and Change

Keep in mind that, as much as President Obama and Congress want to change the American gvernment and the economy, the people still are the ultimate power to affect change in this country.

As Jefferson said,

"I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think proper; to change these agents individually, or the organization of them in form or function whenever they please; that all the acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are the acts of the nation, are obligatory on them and enure to their use, and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the form of the government or of the persons administering it." (Italics mine)

Thus, if the people do not like what Congress and the president are doing, then they may vote them out of office. It will be interesting to see on Nov. 2 if enough of the people who say they are outraged by the shenanigans of Obama and Congress will vote incumbent representatives and senators out of office in the hope of correcting the actions of the last two years; and whether a new majority in Congress will do what those who elected them expect.

It is in no way assured that Republicans, if they regain control of Congress, ultimately will succeed in reversing the egregious acts of the Democrat-controlled Congress, or that they even will try to do so. Republicans, under the 2nd Bush Administration, were as guilty of expanding the federal government as the Democrats. The only significant difference is that the Republicans have did not try to push the nation down the road to a socialist national health system. But that doesn't excuse them from their excesses in the Iraq war and in TARP.

So will there be a change away from "hope and change," or will it be business as usual? If Republicans regain control of Congress and do not correct the course down which the Obama administration has steered us, they will be pounding nails into the coffin of their own party.

FOGGY DAY

FOGGY DAY
On the Neuse