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.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FOGGY DAY
On the Neuse
