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.