Paul Must Support Johnson in the General Election

I enjoy following several blogs, among them bella gerens, a well-written libertarian one, and The Devil's Kitchen, also well-written and libertarian. Both focus more on British issues, but two recent posts in The Devil's Kitchen caught my eye:  The Mitt Romney Problem and The Ron Paul Solution, (particularly the latter)--both written by The Nameless Libertarian (A Brit, but not the Devil)--as analyses of American politics. And both posts show Nameless to have a pretty good understanding of the current presidential campaign.

Nameless writes that Ron Paul has some problems in the campaign, including his personality (he's not particularly presidential) and his unfortunate choice of friends (who wrote racist comments in a newsletter that Paul published).

But by far the biggest problem Paul has is that he’s ahead of the debate. What this primary season for the Republicans is boiling down to is what the last one was about as well; namely, the fight between mainstream statist republicanism and the more extremist Christian fundamentalist wing of that party. Last time it ended up being McCain vs Huckabee; this time it’s Romney vs Santorum. And there’s Paul, stood on the sidelines, making genuinely radical proposals with the mainstream just not listening to him. And because he stands alone among the candidates, he’s painted as some sort of an extremist when all he is really saying is “the state can’t cope with what we want it to do and therefore we should rely on it less”. I hope that there will come a point when Paul’s basic politics is considered the common sense mainstream; unfortunately, that time is not now. 

That shows real understanding of the situation here in the States. Nameless goes on to write,

So he’s not going to win either the nomination nor the presidency. So what should he do? Pack up and head back to Texas to chill with the idiotic Rick Perry? No. He should do something far more radical. He should run for President. As an Independent. 

No argument there. But he would face a problem in doing so. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson,  like Paul, a much more qualified candidate than either Obama or any of the Republican candidates other than Paul, is running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. So if Paul runs a 3rd-party campaign, he will not compete just with the Republican and Democratic candidates, but with Johnson, and that would pull votes away from Johnson rather than effectively denting the vote counts of the major-party candidates.

I think that the Republican Party, due to internal divisions between the religious and social right elements (un-electable minorities) and mainstream elements (no real difference from the Democrats) will in the next couple of decades disintegrate out of existence, leaving a void that will be filled either by several competing minority parties--allowing the Democratic Party to dominate American politics for at least as long as the nation lasts (because they will destroy it)--or by a party that espouses libertarian principles and provides a clear alternative to the statist government we have now.

It would be better if the Republican Party would adopt libertarian principles, saving itself in so doing, and clarifying the paths toward liberty or statism. That won't happen, though, because of the Republican right wing's intransigence and its left wing's irrelevance. So the best thing at this point is to hope that Ron Paul, who will not be the Republican nominee, will actively support Gary Johnson and throw his entire and enthusiastic support to Gary Johnson in the general election. In doing that, Paul will bring not only his supporters to Johnson, but potentially draw both Republicans and Democrats into voting for an appealing alternative to Obamney. As Nameless says,

Paul has cross party support. He can win over small-state Republicans but, with his foreign policy, he can also win over younger people who stand against US bellicosity and who have been bitterly disappointed by a President who has, among other things, left Gitmo open. Put crudely, he could take votes from both left and right, and thus form a radical alternative that hits the vote tally of both the Republicans and the Democrats. 

Erigo Abyssus: Stop the Cybersecurity Act of 2012!

This is a dangerous bill. Contact your senators and congressmen now and tell them to vote against it!

BALANCE THE BUDGET!

Most Americans want Congress to balance the budget, but it must be balanced in a way that prevents a gross tax increase at the same time. And why can’t we balance it while eliminating the national debt as well?

Prior to Obama, the budget on average was around 19.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), so limiting spending to a maximum of 18% of  the preceding year’s GDP should be part of any amendment.
By dedicating an additional amount not to exceed 2% of GDP to paying down the debt, the period required to pay off the debt would be about 50 years.  The GDP in 2009 was $14.1 trillion, so 2% would be $282 billion. However, with economic recovery the GDP will increase, so payments will increase; therefore, a 50-year payment period is estimated.

A total of 20% of GDP annually will be the maximum federal budget for fifty years (about what the average budget was during the Bush 43 years), then, when the national debt is paid off, the budget will be 18% of GDP.

So what would this amendment look like? Here it is:

Amendment 28 – Balanced Budget and Pay Down of Debt

1.  The United States shall not in any fiscal year appropriate nor spend money in excess of revenues; nor shall it take in revenue more than twenty percent of the gross domestic product of the preceding year, two percent of which shall be used to pay down the national debt. After the national debt is extinguished, theUnited States shall not take in revenue more than eighteen percent of the gross domestic product of the preceding year. In the case of an emergency, the government may exceed such spending and revenue upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the Representatives and Senators.

2. Within fifty years following adoption of this amendment, the United States shall extinguish its current debt; thereafter, the debt of the United States shall not exceed ten percent of the gross domestic product of the preceding fiscal year. In the case of an emergency, the debt of the United States may exceed the amount prescribed upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the Representatives and Senators.

Erigo Abyssus: Does the End of the Space Program hold Portent for the Nation?

The precipitous decline of the space program may presage the future of the nation.

Erigo Abyssus: Smut and Mischief Offer a Solution

Silly dogs.

Why not Saudi Arabia?

The U.S. joined in a U.N. action to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, on the pretext of protecting Libyans from their own government. Is the U.S. government's real motive to protect the flow of oil, and to do it by hiding under the coattails of the U.N., many of whose members are every bit as repressive to their people as Gaddafi? There are a lot of questions to be answered.

If the U.S. really just wants to assure continuing importation of oil from the Middle East, then it should quit pretending that its military actions are aiding democracy, protecting the indigenous population, and the like. Just cut to the chase and invade Saudi Arabia, seize the oil fields and make the kingdom the 51st state (the 51st star on the flag could be accompanied by a crescent moon). Oil problem solved, other problems just beginning.

Cut Unions Down to Size Now

In an interview with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Mike Langyel, president of the Milwaukee (Wis.) Teachers' Education Association, refused to answer when she asked if he condoned teachers who obtained fraudulent medical excuses in order not to work but to demonstrate in Madison against a bill that would require state employees, "in the face of a $137 million budget deficit…to contribute 5.8% of their incomes towards their pensions and 12.6% towards health insurance…[Governor] Walker also wants to limit the power of public-employee unions to negotiate contracts and work rules—something that 24 states already limit or ban," as John Fund of the Wall Street Journal explains.


Mr. Langyel repeatedly refused to answer Ms. Kelly's question, instead saying that Gov. Walker was trying to prevent the unions from improving the schools by not "letting them get together at the bargaining table." Please. As if the teachers unions give a shit about students or education. The decline in education in the U.S. has corresponded with the rising influence of teacher unions. Mr. Langyel clearly is afraid that unions will lose the ability to control the State of Wisconsin, and that if Walker succeeds in Wisconsin, other states will follow suit.


If unions believe they promote the good of the public as well as their members, and if they believe that workers want to join unions, why do they fight tooth and nail against any transparency? Why do they not want secret ballots when trying to unionize a company or institution? Because union goons can threaten retaliation against employees who vote against unionization if the vote is public. Why do they fear recertification annually--as Gov. Walker proposes--by a majority vote of all union members? Probably because the union could lose recertification, of course.


Wisconsin, historically the most pro-union state and a union shop state (where one cannot be hired by a unionized company unless one joins the union, and can remain employed only so long as one is a union member), deducts union dues from its employees' paychecks and gives the money to the union bosses, who then dole it out to political candidates who will support unions and big government. If that ends, as proposed, how many of the union members might not pay the $700 to $1,000 annual union dues? Whence will come the money to support pro-union and pro-government-spending candidates for public office?


Unions are a major problem in the U.S. Their influence has contributed greatly to big government and government debt and has prevented needed reforms both on state and national levels. Every state would do well to break the unwarranted and detrimental power and influence of unions by following Wisconsin's lead, and also by becoming right-to-work states which allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join a union.


On the national level, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check bill) would eliminate unionization votes by secret ballot and require employees to vote by signing a card in public. This would give unions the balance of power they need to unionize all companies. Obama and the Democratic Party desperately want Congress to pass this bill because it would increase union membership and therefore the money that flows from union members to union bosses and then to Democratic candidates. Card Check should be defeated, and we should question the constitutional authority for Congress to pass such legislation.


It's time we cut the influence of unions down to an appropriate size. It's offensive to listen to and watch spoiled, self-serving, public-be-damned union bosses and members on fraudulent sick leave demonstrating, defiling the state capitol building and shouting condemnation of the Wisconsin governor, who is doing the job that the Wisconsin electorate mandated.

Erigo Abyssus: Remember Why We Need Spending Cuts

Take a look at the latest Erigo Abyssus rant.

Erigo Abyssus: The States may save the Nation

Erigo Abyssus, in a post related to the preceding post, suggests that the states may save the nation.

Nullification is Right and Proper

As of February 1, twelve states had bills before their legislatures to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Those states--Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming--are absolutely right to nullify ObamaCare, because, as Larry Greenley writes in the New American, the law, which requires Americans to purchase health insurance, "presumes powers for the federal government not authorized by the Constitution of the United States."

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that the law is unconstitutional, but that really doesn't matter. The national government clearly has no power to require Americans to purchase anything. The US Dept. of Justice in a convoluted argument says that by some Americans not purchasing health insurance, the intent of the law will be thwarted, therefore preventing other Americans from enjoying the benefits of the law, and they cite the Constitution's commerce clause as the national government's authority to force people to buy health insurance. What shit! The commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) states that the Congress shall have the power

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Could a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause provide the Congress with the authority to make someone buy something? No fucking way. But whenever the national government wants to do something beyond its constitutional authority, it uses the commerce clause or the preamble's promote the general welfare clause. And, despite what many believe--that the Supreme Court will declare ObamaCare to be unconstitutional--there is a good chance that the court will uphold the law based on the commerce clause argument.

What applies more than the commerce clause and the promote the general welfare clause, is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the preamble's secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity clause. The 10th Amendment 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.

That is the authority for the states to protect its citizens from illegal and unconstitutional acts of the national government, and that's why the states that propose to nullify ObamaCare are right to do so.

Moreover, read what our own Declaration of Independence says:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 

It's time we believe and heed what our founders said about freedom and liberty. The Declaration of Independence is a plan and road map for what to do when our national government tries to limit our freedom and abolish our liberty by ignoring the Constitution.

But before that action is necessary, we should rely on our states to assert our rights and freedom by refusing to comply with reprehensible and unconstitutional acts of the national government.

"Defense" and Its Partners are a Danger to the Republic

The rant over at Erigo Abyssus is against the bloated size of the federal bureaucracy. Here the rant is about a great danger facing the republic: The partnership between the Dept. of Defense and its arms suppliers.

Some background: The United States Dept. of Defense (DOD) is responsible for slightly fewer than 1.5 million active-duty military personnel, and about 1.1 million personnel in reserve components. In addition, it has over 950,000 civilian employees. Of the active-duty military personnel, approximately 300,000 are deployed in foreign countries around the world. The proposed DOD budget for fiscal year 2011 is $708 billion. To put this figure in perspective, it is only slightly smaller than the infamous 2009 $900-billion stimulus bill.

Up until 1947, we had a War Department. The National Security Act of 1947 renamed it the Department of Defense. But isn't that a misnomer? If it really was a defense department, there would not be 300,000 troops around the world. We should think about changing the name back to the War Department, or even better, bring home all those troops. Unfortunately, bringing home the troops is as unlikely as the federal government cutting spending.

Since 1947 the U.S. has been driven into wars and conflicts by the collusion of the military and the private defense companies that make the weapons and equipment the military depends on, and the sale of which those companies depend on. It is a symbiotic relationship. Just the three largest defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, derive from U.S. defense contracting a combined total revenue of billions of dollars ($100 billion in 2001) and employ hundreds of thousands (400,000 in 2001). That doesn't include arms sales to foreign countries.

It has been said that war is big business, and that certainly is apparent. President Eisenhower, in the famous speech in 1961 in which he coined the term, "military-industrial complex," said

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. [emphasis mine.] We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

It is not surprising that the immense influence of this relationship between the military and industry leads to armed conflict. U.S. foreign policy, even if conducted by those with the best of intentions, cannot help but be influenced by the need for our defense contractors to build more weapons and war material, and therefore the need for the military to consume and expend those weapons and material. How else to keep the approximately 4 million defense contractor employees, military personnel and civilian defense employees working? How else to maintain the contribution of hundreds of billions of dollars to our gross domestic product (GDP)?

And we, the people, have to pay for it all, and not just defense-related activities, but entitlement programs that the federal government instituted. Together, defense and entitlements make up a large part of the huge federal debt. To pay for all that, taxes must go up, or the government must borrow the money or print it. If the money is borrowed, the interest to be paid amounts to new spending, and if it is printed, it devalues the dollar. Either event amounts to a tax on the people.

If the government can tax people without an act of Congress specifying the tax, then the government has abandoned the Constitution, and we no longer are free.

It should be obvious that in order to maintain our liberty the size and power of the federal government must be reduced and limited. But in the face of the vast scope and influence of the military-industrial complex, will it be possible to reduce the size of government, specifically, the Dept. of Defense, and limit its power? Not unless the people demand it.

Why do we just accept this? We are no longer the Americans who, as colonists of the British Empire, refused to accept unjust taxes and unjust government.

Don't Do Big Things!

There are more than a quarter million people working at the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce. Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security combined nearly pass the half-million mark. And at a moment of grave fiscal peril, we continue to spend half the planet's money on defense, with Obama et al expecting thunderous applause for snipping out "tens of billions" from future defense spending growth. We continue to arrest 800,000-plus people a year for smoking or trading a plant that makes you want to eat Pop Tarts. --Matt Welch, Reason 

My reaction to President Obama's statement in the State of the Union Address that "we do big things," is that doing big things like bailing out GM and Chrysler, "stimulating" the economy to the tune of $900 billion, massively increasing the federal bureaucracy, passing a bloated health-care law, and spending uselessly on "green" energy, increased our national debt to $14 trillion and is threatening to turn the U.S. into a third-world country in the near future.

Obama seems oblivious to the danger. His puny suggestion to freeze $400 million of discretionary spending over the next five years while spending trillions for big things like building high-speed rail, repairing the infrastructure, and funding green energy research and development would be amusing if it were not so irresponsible.

Get it through your heads, Obama and Congress: We cannot spend our way to a sound economy! We must keep taxes at a level that allows our businesses to compete so they will create jobs. We must spend not one penny more than we raise in taxes. We must dismantle large parts of the bloated federal government. We must reign in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs and wean Americans off big socialist government. To the folks who will scream and whine about these "musts:" Our government cannot sustain this spending, and when it comes crashing down as in Greece, the measures that will be taken then will be worse than if we stop this insanity now.

Get this socialist moron Obama and his running dogs in Congress--and that doesn't mean just Democrats--out of office ASAP!

Make Them All Squirm

The media reports today that the conservative Supreme Court Justices—Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and swing-voter Kennedy—may not show up at the State of the Union Address tomorrow night. One cable news organization speculates that none of the justices may attend. Only Justice Alito has stated that he will not attend, although Justices Scalia and Thomas usually do not appear.

The reasons are that they think that they should give the appearance of impartiality by refraining from standing and applauding during the speech as others in the chamber do, but, of course, that makes it seem as if they are showing partiality; that, in the event, they see the address as having degenerated into a pep rally for the president and his party (no matter what party the president represents); and because they do not want to hear the president insult the court as Obama did last year in referring to the court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Well, get the hell over it. Those in all branches of the government should be accountable, and if they have to face a little embarrassment, so be it. The fact is, we in the U.S. would do better to in some way emulate the Brits, whose prime minister, as a Minister of the Crown, must face the House of Commons for a half-hour each week in Questions to the Prime Minister (PMQs), and lie to the MPs as best he or she can (the PM is an MP).

Just as cabinet members must testify before Congress when called, it would not violate the separation of powers to require the president to face the House of Representatives for a half hour each week and answer questions; it would be informative to the people as well as the House members. After all, from time to time presidents call the leaders of the House and the Senate to the White House for "discussions." Why let the president get away with only one visit to Congress every year?

As for the Supremes visiting the House chamber for the State of the Union Address, it should be protocol for them to sit on their hands and not cheer and applaud during the speech. As long as everyone is aware of the protocol, it gives the justices the appearance of impartiality. But in any event they should be present, even if their faces are reddened occasionally.

A Few Thoughts about the 2012 Presidential Election

To begin with, despite all the speculation in the media whether Barack Obama will win a second term, it’s just too early to tell now.

As of this week, Obama’s approval rating is above 50%, but that fluctuates from week to week, event to event. In a 2003 USA today story by Richard Benedetto, “History of Approval Ratings on Bush’s side for reelection,” Frank Newport, editor of the Gallup Poll, reportedly said that the approval rating in March or April of election year is a more reliable predictor.

He points out that every incumbent president since Roosevelt who was at 50% approval or higher in April of his election year went on to win…The last two presidents who lost their bids for re-election, Carter and the elder Bush, were both at 39% approval in April of the election year.

Even though, as Benedetto reported, a good approval rating at the end of a president’s third year in office is a fairly good predictor, it’s not without exception.

With the exception of Jimmy Carter, every president since Franklin Roosevelt who ended his third year in office with job approval above 50% won the re-election he sought. Presidential job-approval polling began with Roosevelt.

Richard Nixon, who was at 50% at the end of his third year, also won. Carter was at 54% when the year ended.

We mustn’t forget that the opposition must be taken into account, too. What the Republicans do in the next two years, and how the voters react will play a large part.

However, the most important aspect of the opposition to Obama’s reelection will be who runs against him. As of right now, the likely Republican nomination contenders appear weak. Sarah Palin will find it difficult for voters to take her seriously after all the gaffes she had made. Mitt Romney does not have the personal appeal to beat Obama. Newt Gingrich has too much baggage. Mike Huckabee doesn’t have the drive or the base to win. Ron Paul, who really is a libertarian, has the best ideas, but Americans either consider him too extreme or too risky. There are several other potential candidates for the Republican nomination who are not well known among voters, including Paul Ryan who appears solid and is being hyped up in the media, and Bobby Jindal, who has great ideas.

But Obama has an ace in the hole that previous candidates and presidents haven’t possessed: A solid block of black voters (supported by a majority of Hispanic voters) who will vote for Obama regardless of his approval rating, unless they just don’t vote at all.

Even if one of the Republican candidates emerges as a strong nominee (and that’s quite doubtful), it will be very difficult to beat Obama unless he loses the support of a great majority of independent voters.

To end with, despite all the speculation in the media whether Barack Obama will win a second term, it’s just too early to tell now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?