|
NOTE: New content added! |
|
This section deals with our "growing" government and how the growth affects our Country. We will attempt to give you an idea of just how out-of-hand Big Government can get!
Liberals Aren’t Losing Faith in Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like Its Results.
ink; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/09/liberals-arent-losing-faith-in-our-constitutional-system-they-just-dont-like-its-results/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRJNE1UVTNaVE5pTnpGaSIsInQiOiJnXC9BdTE3Z1JUZW5IOGhyZlUwRnduMFYxMkR5UWRrUENEa09JdUxqZjRXK3VpclBRcFRXUmRaXC8zdWE5azRSbmVObXJcL3B6RUxkTHVsNkVnYW9oNlpDcStvWkJFbWt1Qkd2a1dwdEFjNnQxOXJVRVZlNE5DTHhoWFFhYUdLUEUyRiJ9
Is The Constitution A Living Breathing Document?
Living Constitution
https:// theconstitutionalconservatives .com/forum/topics/ constitution-101-living-and- breathing-is-the-same-as-dead
Supreme Court
http://www.libertylawsite.org/ 2017/06/21/the-living- constitution-on-the-supreme- courts-website/
Should illegal aliens be counted in the census for voting purposes?
PDF from Minnesota University
https://babel.hathitrust.org/ cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d020923843; view=1up;seq=8
https:// theconstitutionalconservatives .com/forum/topics/ constitution-101-living-and- breathing-is-the-same-as-dead
Supreme Court
http://www.libertylawsite.org/ 2017/06/21/the-living- constitution-on-the-supreme- courts-website/
Should illegal aliens be counted in the census for voting purposes?
PDF from Minnesota University
https://babel.hathitrust.org/ cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d020923843; view=1up;seq=8
End The Fake Filibuster
February 8, 2017, 12:04 am
It’s not a constitutional requirement at all.
Tuesday, Senate Democrats lost the battle to stop President Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education. But on bigger battles ahead, the Democrats have a powerful weapon – and they intend to use it.Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. Yet Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer boasts that he can block Trump’s legislative agenda, including repealing the Affordable Care Act.
“Obamacare, he won’t be able to do it,” Schumer says. “Forget about repealing or modifying Dodd-Frank.”
What allows Schumer to thwart the majority’s will and paralyze the Senate? Not the U.S. Constitution, as the framers designed it.
The answer is a centuries-old Senate practice called the filibuster. Senators in the minority could take the floor and talk endlessly, never agreeing to formally end debate so the majority could vote. They’d talk the legislation to death or “filibuster” it, in the process shutting down all other Senate business. The House never permitted it, always allowing a simple majority to shut down debate.
In the Senate, the idea was to make sure the minority was heard. But over the years, the rule was exploited to actually stop legislation altogether.
Southern Democrats used it to block anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s and civil rights laws in the 1950s. Not until June 10, 1964, were anti-segregationists able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a major civil rights bill — after 60 days of debate.
Then in 1975, the Senate modified the filibuster, adopting a 60-vote rule. Senators could close debate and bring legislation to a vote — if they had 60 votes to do it. Since then, senators don’t have to monopolize the floor and debate endlessly, shutting down all business. Threatening to do so is enough to hold up a bill. Call it a fake filibuster. Right now, Republicans have 52 Senate seats, not enough to stop Democrats from filibustering legislation and Supreme Court nominees.
In recent years, Republicans have benefited from the 60-vote rule. During President Obama’s first two years in office, the Republican Senate minority used it to kill pro-union Card Check legislation, the Dream Act, gun control, and a federal minimum wage hike.
Now Democrats want payback. Minutes after President Trump announced his Supreme Court nominee, Schumer proclaimed that “on a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination,” there have to be 60 votes to move the nomination along.
That’s politics. But D.C. insiders talk about the 60-vote rule as if it were sacrosanct, the holy grail of democracy. “It’s the way our founding fathers set it up,” says Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.).
Sorry, Senator. That’s not the case.
The framers designated five circumstances requiring a supermajority: convicting an impeached president or other high officer, amending the Constitution, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto, or expelling a member of Congress. That’s the list. Passing laws and confirming justices aren’t on it.
At the Constitutional Convention, the framers considered requiring a supermajority in the Senate to pass laws but repeatedly rejected the idea.
James Madison explained in Federalist No. 58 that it would give the minority control over the majority. The “principle of free government would be reversed.” Requiring laws to pass two houses of Congress and giving the president a veto were better ways to promote wise lawmaking.
Alexander Hamilton warned a supermajority requirement would cause “tedious delays” as it had under the failed Articles of Confederation. Just what we’re facing now.
Meanwhile, McConnell, a Senate lifer first elected in 1984, defends the 60-vote rule, telling colleagues not to “act as if we’re going to be in the majority forever.”
NYU law professor Burt Neuborne deplores these “rules that scratch my back today and yours tomorrow.” They protect career politicians but not the public.
The filibuster dashes voters’ hopes that an election can produce real change.
Some call dropping the filibuster “going nuclear.” Actually, it would be a return to what the framers envisioned — “going original.”
It’s not a constitutional requirement at all.
Tuesday, Senate Democrats lost the battle to stop President Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education. But on bigger battles ahead, the Democrats have a powerful weapon – and they intend to use it.Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. Yet Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer boasts that he can block Trump’s legislative agenda, including repealing the Affordable Care Act.
“Obamacare, he won’t be able to do it,” Schumer says. “Forget about repealing or modifying Dodd-Frank.”
What allows Schumer to thwart the majority’s will and paralyze the Senate? Not the U.S. Constitution, as the framers designed it.
The answer is a centuries-old Senate practice called the filibuster. Senators in the minority could take the floor and talk endlessly, never agreeing to formally end debate so the majority could vote. They’d talk the legislation to death or “filibuster” it, in the process shutting down all other Senate business. The House never permitted it, always allowing a simple majority to shut down debate.
In the Senate, the idea was to make sure the minority was heard. But over the years, the rule was exploited to actually stop legislation altogether.
Southern Democrats used it to block anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s and civil rights laws in the 1950s. Not until June 10, 1964, were anti-segregationists able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a major civil rights bill — after 60 days of debate.
Then in 1975, the Senate modified the filibuster, adopting a 60-vote rule. Senators could close debate and bring legislation to a vote — if they had 60 votes to do it. Since then, senators don’t have to monopolize the floor and debate endlessly, shutting down all business. Threatening to do so is enough to hold up a bill. Call it a fake filibuster. Right now, Republicans have 52 Senate seats, not enough to stop Democrats from filibustering legislation and Supreme Court nominees.
In recent years, Republicans have benefited from the 60-vote rule. During President Obama’s first two years in office, the Republican Senate minority used it to kill pro-union Card Check legislation, the Dream Act, gun control, and a federal minimum wage hike.
Now Democrats want payback. Minutes after President Trump announced his Supreme Court nominee, Schumer proclaimed that “on a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination,” there have to be 60 votes to move the nomination along.
That’s politics. But D.C. insiders talk about the 60-vote rule as if it were sacrosanct, the holy grail of democracy. “It’s the way our founding fathers set it up,” says Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.).
Sorry, Senator. That’s not the case.
The framers designated five circumstances requiring a supermajority: convicting an impeached president or other high officer, amending the Constitution, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto, or expelling a member of Congress. That’s the list. Passing laws and confirming justices aren’t on it.
At the Constitutional Convention, the framers considered requiring a supermajority in the Senate to pass laws but repeatedly rejected the idea.
James Madison explained in Federalist No. 58 that it would give the minority control over the majority. The “principle of free government would be reversed.” Requiring laws to pass two houses of Congress and giving the president a veto were better ways to promote wise lawmaking.
Alexander Hamilton warned a supermajority requirement would cause “tedious delays” as it had under the failed Articles of Confederation. Just what we’re facing now.
Meanwhile, McConnell, a Senate lifer first elected in 1984, defends the 60-vote rule, telling colleagues not to “act as if we’re going to be in the majority forever.”
NYU law professor Burt Neuborne deplores these “rules that scratch my back today and yours tomorrow.” They protect career politicians but not the public.
The filibuster dashes voters’ hopes that an election can produce real change.
Some call dropping the filibuster “going nuclear.” Actually, it would be a return to what the framers envisioned — “going original.”
Article V Debate
Saving Article V from Natelson: A "Convention of States" Requires States
Why We Must Unite In Common Purpose
Here is why we must unite in common purpose against a common enemy; Progressive/Socialist Federal Government.
There are several Major attempts to reform the Current Constitutional Amendments to bring the Constitution back into line with what the Founders intended it to be. Having all these separate movements detracts from our strengths just as those in power want it to be weakened so they may maintain their strangle hold over the people and the nation.
Here is why we must unite in common purpose against a common enemy; Progressive/Socialist Federal Government.
There are several Major attempts to reform the Current Constitutional Amendments to bring the Constitution back into line with what the Founders intended it to be. Having all these separate movements detracts from our strengths just as those in power want it to be weakened so they may maintain their strangle hold over the people and the nation.
We have The Article V Project To Restore Liberty's proposed 28th Amendment that states This
We have the Compact for America that has this to say about major movement.
We also have the Convention of States
By 'M',
All these movements and many others have a commonality of purpose, wresting the power that was stolen from the people by the Elitists in Government and returning it to the people. Those are Good & Laudable intentions, but as my father used to say,"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
However they go about rectifying the problem in differing ways and in doing so are squandering and diluting their strengths.
Here's what is wrong with having multiple movements going about it in differing ways. All the manifold movements are good in themselves, but what they lack is cohesion and numbers large enough to overwhelm the politicians. I seriously doubt the Washington Politico's and their hidden puppet masters would even blink if 90% of the American population demanded they relinquish even an iota of their stolen powers. So how do all these movements plan to succeed individually?
My point is they can't if things remain as is.
I know there are many reputations involved, some big, some average,some small. All those reputations are on the line, and they shouldn't be. They should be working in concert with each other as our Founders did, to create a workable agenda to Restore the Republic, and to Return the Constitution to it's original form with the checks and balances restored to their original strengths to maintain a healthy balance in Government. Never forget what the elitist politico's want you to forget; The Constitution was designed and intended to be the ironclad collar on the Federal Government to prevent what is happening today. It's happening because the people were lulled into the belief that the Federal Government and those rapacious Politico's running it were acting in the best interests of the people instead of themselves.
We need a workable shared plan to fight the Elitist Monied Powers that want to rule over all of mankind by first destroying the hope America gives the world to resist them.
My proposal is for all of us who want to see a resurgence of the American Ethics of Freedom,Liberty,and Self Rule under Constitutional Law, individually contact the leaders of these Patriot and Constitutional reform groups.
The message to them is "United in Common Purpose with an agreed upon Unified Agenda, will have an unstoppable force which will bring about the desired ends that have not been attained separately." We also know we will have extremely limited acquiescence from the Elitist Politico's entrenched in Washington's Clan Locked and Self Aggrandizing environment. The few True Constitutional Patriots there are always being over whelmed by the entrenched hydra like power mongers.
This begs for a workable way around the Washington Labyrinth of Elitist Controllers.
In my opinion we must all focus on our state Legislatures and force them if necessary to accede to our demands they petition for an Article V amendment proposal convention, or for them to unite with all the 50 state Legislatures and send a proposal for an amendment with the same exact wording about repealing the 14th,16th,and 17th amendments. This must be done first to give the people and the states the Legal upper hand that cannot be degraded by Congress or from a Bench Edict from SCOTUS.
From there we can move forward and push for amendments that will establish term limits for Congressional Representatives, and any other amendments we decide we need to maintain our Liberty and Freedoms, including returning to the states the usurped controls of the EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, etc. We can even put in place an agreed on method to stop the abuse of Eminent Domain and all the other abuses the Elitists took from the States for their own gratification, advancement of their personal and political fortunes.
To do these things, we must First and Foremost, regain the Legal Authority within the Constitution that was gradually stripped from us, to do otherwise will end in failure.
The only way that will come to pass is if we propose the following language as a 28th Amendment, and see it Ratified!;
"The Fourteenth, the Sixteenth, and the Seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed."
Feel Free to pass this on to everyone you know.
All these movements and many others have a commonality of purpose, wresting the power that was stolen from the people by the Elitists in Government and returning it to the people. Those are Good & Laudable intentions, but as my father used to say,"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
However they go about rectifying the problem in differing ways and in doing so are squandering and diluting their strengths.
Here's what is wrong with having multiple movements going about it in differing ways. All the manifold movements are good in themselves, but what they lack is cohesion and numbers large enough to overwhelm the politicians. I seriously doubt the Washington Politico's and their hidden puppet masters would even blink if 90% of the American population demanded they relinquish even an iota of their stolen powers. So how do all these movements plan to succeed individually?
My point is they can't if things remain as is.
I know there are many reputations involved, some big, some average,some small. All those reputations are on the line, and they shouldn't be. They should be working in concert with each other as our Founders did, to create a workable agenda to Restore the Republic, and to Return the Constitution to it's original form with the checks and balances restored to their original strengths to maintain a healthy balance in Government. Never forget what the elitist politico's want you to forget; The Constitution was designed and intended to be the ironclad collar on the Federal Government to prevent what is happening today. It's happening because the people were lulled into the belief that the Federal Government and those rapacious Politico's running it were acting in the best interests of the people instead of themselves.
We need a workable shared plan to fight the Elitist Monied Powers that want to rule over all of mankind by first destroying the hope America gives the world to resist them.
My proposal is for all of us who want to see a resurgence of the American Ethics of Freedom,Liberty,and Self Rule under Constitutional Law, individually contact the leaders of these Patriot and Constitutional reform groups.
The message to them is "United in Common Purpose with an agreed upon Unified Agenda, will have an unstoppable force which will bring about the desired ends that have not been attained separately." We also know we will have extremely limited acquiescence from the Elitist Politico's entrenched in Washington's Clan Locked and Self Aggrandizing environment. The few True Constitutional Patriots there are always being over whelmed by the entrenched hydra like power mongers.
This begs for a workable way around the Washington Labyrinth of Elitist Controllers.
In my opinion we must all focus on our state Legislatures and force them if necessary to accede to our demands they petition for an Article V amendment proposal convention, or for them to unite with all the 50 state Legislatures and send a proposal for an amendment with the same exact wording about repealing the 14th,16th,and 17th amendments. This must be done first to give the people and the states the Legal upper hand that cannot be degraded by Congress or from a Bench Edict from SCOTUS.
From there we can move forward and push for amendments that will establish term limits for Congressional Representatives, and any other amendments we decide we need to maintain our Liberty and Freedoms, including returning to the states the usurped controls of the EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, etc. We can even put in place an agreed on method to stop the abuse of Eminent Domain and all the other abuses the Elitists took from the States for their own gratification, advancement of their personal and political fortunes.
To do these things, we must First and Foremost, regain the Legal Authority within the Constitution that was gradually stripped from us, to do otherwise will end in failure.
The only way that will come to pass is if we propose the following language as a 28th Amendment, and see it Ratified!;
"The Fourteenth, the Sixteenth, and the Seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed."
Feel Free to pass this on to everyone you know.
FINALLY! A Place to Voice Your Opinion
This is where you go to voice your opinion over pending rules and regulations by the many government agencies. This is real citizen involvement! The E=GREENS use it to death and they pay people to post so we the people have our work cut out if we are to protect ourselves.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
American Lands Council Legal Analysis Background Part 1
f you have been watching the news, you realize that now, more than ever, it is critical to educate everyone around you that there is a legal, constitutional and realistic way to resolve the serious problems facing the nation that have come from the Federal Government failing to keep its constitutional obligations to dispose of the public lands to the states.
Some of the top legal experts in the nation have come together as part of Utah's Legal Team and released an amazing legal analysis that spells out the carefully well documented case for transferring the public lands over to all willing western states, as was promised in our Enabling Acts. Please share these emails with your friends, colleagues and elected officials and help diffuse the frustration, and miseducation that still pervades in many parts of our nation and help us all stand united as we move forward to restore better access, health and productivity to our nation's public lands.
(Historical Background Part 1 excerpts pages 10-23 of the UT TPL Legal Analysis. Click here for the full Legal Analysis and here the the bios of the Legal Team.)
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND - PART ONE The Equal Sovereignty Principle and the Equal Footing Doctrine, together with the legal and historical precedent discussed below, conclude that the federal government must treat all States as equal. Indeed, Utah’s enabling act promised that she would be admitted on “an equal footing with the original States.” It was against the historical background of equal treatment that Congress and Utah engaged in the admission process, and documented an understanding that the United States would continue the timely disposal of the public lands within Utah’s borders, just as the United States had always done in previously admitted States with public lands. In fact, however, Congress breached this understanding. As a result of that breach, Utah has been treated as decidedly less than an equal sovereign, a result, as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Shelby, the Constitution does not allow.
It has been said that the law is philosophy applied to history. The law we have been asked to analyze is uniquely informed by early American history. Indeed, it is not possible to understand the law’s meaning and scope without a full understanding of applicable American history, even that history predating the adoption of our Constitution.
We shall show that the historical context indicates that the equal sovereignty of the States was a foundational principle of our Nation, and that dominion over land was a critical component of that equal sovereignty. When the original Union was being formed under the Articles of Confederation, Maryland insisted that all the landed States should cede their Western territories so they could be sold by the United States to pay the Revolutionary War debt “and be settled and formed into distinct republican States which shall become members of the Federal Union and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.”
Each of the original thirteen States, and the next three that entered the Union — Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee — received all the vacant, unappropriated Crown lands upon their admission to the Union. States admitted thereafter with public lands obtained dominion over the land within their borders through federal public land policy that stimulated disposal and settlement of that land.
All States understood that the federal government would temporarily hold public lands for so long as it took to sell them to create a common fund to pay the public debt. As the Supreme Court explained in Pollard v. Hagan:
This right originated in voluntary surrenders, made by several of the old states, of their waste and unappropriated lands, to the United States, under a resolution of the old Congress, of the 6th of September, 1780, recommending such surrender and cession, to aid in paying the public debt, incurred by the war of the Revolution. The object of all the parties to these contracts of cession, was to convert the land into money for the payment of the debt, and to erect new states over the territory thus ceded; and as soon as these purposes could be accomplished, the power of the United States over these lands, as property, was to cease (emphasis added).
In short, the historical record shows that when Utah joined the Union — when the United States admitted Utah into the Union and Utah agreed to become a State within the United States – the United States and Utah understood that the United States would, within a reasonable time, dispose of the public lands that it then owned, and admit Utah to the Union with “the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.” The text of the documents admitting Utah as a State cannot properly be interpreted divorced from that historical context.
As we shall see, Congress promised the regular and prompt disposal of public lands under its control many times over the course of the history of the United States. Congress delivered on this promise for nearly two hundred years, actively promoting the settlement, transfer, and development of public lands in State after State. Then, in 1976 Congress reversed its longstanding promise of orderly disposition with the passage of FLPMA. Because Congress breached this understanding, the United States owns very little land east of Colorado and New Mexico but the majority of the land from those points west. If the eastern States had explicitly determined to enjoy disproportionate political and commercial power compared to the western States as was unsuccessfully proposed by Elbridge Gerry at the Constitutional Convention, they would have done exactly what has been done. That result was rejected as unfair and unacceptable by the Framers, and the history and jurisprudence discussed below suggest that the Court would reject it as unfair and unacceptable today.
Now, let us turn to the historical and legal background that led to this situation.
1. The Nature of Sovereignty Sovereignty, in the conduct of collective human activity, is the right of a people or a government to conduct its internal affairs in accordance with its discrete rulemaking mechanisms. The “sovereign,” whether a monarch, sultan, dictator, or nation-state, has the power to: make laws for the governance of a people; impose taxes; enforce laws; enter into agreements and treaties with other sovereign peoples and states; conduct national trade; raise armies and navies; act on behalf of the state in relation to other sovereigns; conduct national and internal defense for the protection of the state and its people; and acquire, own and dispose of land in the name of the sovereign by right of purchase, conquest or discovery.
A national government must act on behalf of the population it governs in its relations with foreign powers and as an internal organizing force for the management of a society. It is invested with independence and the power to act for a people. The incidents of sovereignty, therefore, are all powers necessary for the advancement of a nation. Government’s overarching jurisdiction invests it with coercive power sufficient for the protection of its citizens, though our government is founded on the principle that its legitimate purpose is the protection of individual liberty.
2. Sovereign Acquisition of Territory
a) Acquisition by Conquest
Until the rise of empire, collective human affairs were tribal, ethnic, and relatively small. Early annals of tribal conflict indicate that tribes or city-states engaged in wars that resulted in conquest and the concomitant acquisition of the land of those they conquered. With the rise of empire began the collection and organization of large multi-ethnic populations and the acquisition of huge territories. No one questioned the legitimacy of territorial acquisition by right of conquest, and no legal mechanism existed for contesting the seizure of land through force. Imperial expansion, then, was largely carried out by conquest among competing empires.
b) Acquisition by Discovery
Later, during the Age of Discovery, a theory arose that was largely accepted by the leading imperial powers: acquisition by right of discovery. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 began the international codification of what had previously been an assumption: that nations can engage in territorial expansion by right of discovery.
In Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,16 Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
But as [the European Powers] were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.17
c) Title to Unoccupied Colonial Lands Vested in the Crown by Discovery
Thus did the British Empire lay claim to much of North America and exercised its sovereign privilege by asserting title to all “unoccupied” land.
According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, as representing the nation, and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the Crown as a branch of the royal prerogative [sovereignty].
The British Empire successively claimed all lands described in the royal charters that established its colonies in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Massachusetts by right of Crown sovereignty.
It is a settled doctrine with us that all valid individual title to land within the United States is derived from grants from or under the authority of the governments of England, Sweden, Holland, France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, the chartered and crown colonies or the Government of the United States and the several States of the Union.
The English possessions in America were claimed by right of discovery. Having been discovered by the subjects of the King of England and taken possession of same in his name, by his authority or with his assent, they were held by the King as the representative of and in trust for the nation; all vacant lands, and the exclusive power to grant them, were vested in him. (The Public Domain, It’s History; Thomas Donaldson: Report to House of Representatives of the United States of America; Public Lands Commission, 1884, page 158. Hereafter “Donaldson”)
3. Nature of Land Ownership in Colonial North America
a) Socage and the Sovereignty of the Crown Over Land
Under the charter of King James I, the lands of the first and second colonies of Virginia were to be held by the mildest form of feudal tenure, “free and common socage.” Under this regime, title to land continued to rest in the sovereign and those granted tenure received it subject to the rendering of duties to the landholding lord (the Crown of England, in most cases). Blackstone described it as follows:
Socage, in its most general and extensive signification, seems to denote a tenure by any certain or determinate service. And in this sense it is by our ancient writers constantly put in opposition to chivalry, or knight-service, where the render was precarious and uncertain.
Landholding in the colonies under “socage” was a lesser form of right than that known today. It was not quite fee simple ownership, in that it confirmed the sovereign rights of the Crown, and the Crown’s sovereign ownership of the land. “The usual tenure of the colonial grants, after Raleigh’s first one, was free and common socage.” This confirmed the primacy of the Crown and its ownership of land, occupied and otherwise, as an incident of its sovereignty.
b) Abolishment of Feudal Ownership
This Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted by the Confederation Congress, was the first general legislation in the United States on the subject of real property and it changed the nature of land ownership throughout the now free States. After the American Revolution, most of the States abolished all forms of feudal ownership, including free and common socage, and the Northwest Ordinance abolished the practice as a matter of national policy.
4. Independence In 1774, the Royal Colonies met in convention, referred to as the “Continental Congress,” to discuss their joint grievances with the Crown. The convention drafted documents of protest at the colonies’ treatment at the hands of the Crown. When the colonists’ remonstrances were unsuccessful, a second convention was called and representatives of all the colonies attended.
The Second Continental Congress served as a convention of colonies – soon to be independent States – to seek ways to act jointly with respect to issues of common concern. It was a conclave of separate and independent colonies intended to move those colonies to act in concert with one another with respect to colonial relations with the Crown. It convened in the summer of 1775, some months after armed hostilities signaled that the American war for independence had begun. Its delegates, again chosen by their respective colonies, represented the separate interests of their respective colonies.
On May 6, 1776, Virginia declared its independence from the Crown, and the other colonies followed on July 4, 1776. By these acts, the colonies effectively became free and independent nations inheriting all sovereign rights and powers of the Crown within their borders.
In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.
5. The Original States Succeeded to Ownership of all Crown Land The term “state” -- meaning “a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government”31 -- was purposefully chosen by the Founders to signify that each colony was a sovereign body enjoying all powers of sovereignty inhering in nation-states. The term “nation-state” was a topic of considerable discussion in the 18th Century and enjoyed broad intellectual and political currency. It was intended to describe a discrete, independent government exercising exclusive jurisdiction over a defined geographical area. The new “states” adopted the title to describe what they intended as the nature of the newly sovereign States. Each State operated (and still operates) independently of every other State. Each established and maintained separate court systems, legislatures, executives, regulatory schemes, systems of taxation and governance, criminal and civil laws, voting qualifications, and so forth.
The separate and complete sovereignty of the original States was sufficiently important to the founding generation that they enshrined it in their first formal treaty, the Articles of Confederation, Article II. The States’ succession to the sovereignty of the Crown has repeatedly been reaffirmed by the Court. As independent sovereigns, the States established separate governments; adopted State constitutions; enacted criminal and civil statutes; imposed taxes and imposts; established and maintained courts; and succeeded to all other incidents and prerogatives of the sovereignty previously enjoyed by the Crown in North America, including ownership of all vacant and unappropriated land within their borders.
Each of the original thirteen States – and the three that followed, Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – succeeded to ownership of all vacant, unappropriated Crown lands and disposed of same over time for their own part thereafter.
6. Conflicting Western Land Claims Both before and after independence, the States competed with one another in commerce and trade, foreign policy, and territory. The States had their own monetary systems and placed tariffs on the trade of goods between one another. Each raised its own militia and maintained its own defenses.
No area of controversy was more heated than the landed States’ claims to the “Western Lands,” consisting mainly of what were referred to as “vast waste lands” east of the Mississippi River and south of Canada. Of the thirteen colonies, six had carefully defined western borders and no claims to any western lands, while seven asserted colorable claims to the western lands. Three – Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia -- laid claim to land extending to the Pacific Ocean. Virginia, the first colony, had vast land claims -- as far north as present-day Canada and as far west as present day California -- and jealously guarded those claims. The map below illustrates various conflicting claims east of the Mississippi and cessions to the Federal government circa 1782 to 1802.
Some of the top legal experts in the nation have come together as part of Utah's Legal Team and released an amazing legal analysis that spells out the carefully well documented case for transferring the public lands over to all willing western states, as was promised in our Enabling Acts. Please share these emails with your friends, colleagues and elected officials and help diffuse the frustration, and miseducation that still pervades in many parts of our nation and help us all stand united as we move forward to restore better access, health and productivity to our nation's public lands.
(Historical Background Part 1 excerpts pages 10-23 of the UT TPL Legal Analysis. Click here for the full Legal Analysis and here the the bios of the Legal Team.)
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND - PART ONE The Equal Sovereignty Principle and the Equal Footing Doctrine, together with the legal and historical precedent discussed below, conclude that the federal government must treat all States as equal. Indeed, Utah’s enabling act promised that she would be admitted on “an equal footing with the original States.” It was against the historical background of equal treatment that Congress and Utah engaged in the admission process, and documented an understanding that the United States would continue the timely disposal of the public lands within Utah’s borders, just as the United States had always done in previously admitted States with public lands. In fact, however, Congress breached this understanding. As a result of that breach, Utah has been treated as decidedly less than an equal sovereign, a result, as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Shelby, the Constitution does not allow.
It has been said that the law is philosophy applied to history. The law we have been asked to analyze is uniquely informed by early American history. Indeed, it is not possible to understand the law’s meaning and scope without a full understanding of applicable American history, even that history predating the adoption of our Constitution.
We shall show that the historical context indicates that the equal sovereignty of the States was a foundational principle of our Nation, and that dominion over land was a critical component of that equal sovereignty. When the original Union was being formed under the Articles of Confederation, Maryland insisted that all the landed States should cede their Western territories so they could be sold by the United States to pay the Revolutionary War debt “and be settled and formed into distinct republican States which shall become members of the Federal Union and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.”
Each of the original thirteen States, and the next three that entered the Union — Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee — received all the vacant, unappropriated Crown lands upon their admission to the Union. States admitted thereafter with public lands obtained dominion over the land within their borders through federal public land policy that stimulated disposal and settlement of that land.
All States understood that the federal government would temporarily hold public lands for so long as it took to sell them to create a common fund to pay the public debt. As the Supreme Court explained in Pollard v. Hagan:
This right originated in voluntary surrenders, made by several of the old states, of their waste and unappropriated lands, to the United States, under a resolution of the old Congress, of the 6th of September, 1780, recommending such surrender and cession, to aid in paying the public debt, incurred by the war of the Revolution. The object of all the parties to these contracts of cession, was to convert the land into money for the payment of the debt, and to erect new states over the territory thus ceded; and as soon as these purposes could be accomplished, the power of the United States over these lands, as property, was to cease (emphasis added).
In short, the historical record shows that when Utah joined the Union — when the United States admitted Utah into the Union and Utah agreed to become a State within the United States – the United States and Utah understood that the United States would, within a reasonable time, dispose of the public lands that it then owned, and admit Utah to the Union with “the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.” The text of the documents admitting Utah as a State cannot properly be interpreted divorced from that historical context.
As we shall see, Congress promised the regular and prompt disposal of public lands under its control many times over the course of the history of the United States. Congress delivered on this promise for nearly two hundred years, actively promoting the settlement, transfer, and development of public lands in State after State. Then, in 1976 Congress reversed its longstanding promise of orderly disposition with the passage of FLPMA. Because Congress breached this understanding, the United States owns very little land east of Colorado and New Mexico but the majority of the land from those points west. If the eastern States had explicitly determined to enjoy disproportionate political and commercial power compared to the western States as was unsuccessfully proposed by Elbridge Gerry at the Constitutional Convention, they would have done exactly what has been done. That result was rejected as unfair and unacceptable by the Framers, and the history and jurisprudence discussed below suggest that the Court would reject it as unfair and unacceptable today.
Now, let us turn to the historical and legal background that led to this situation.
1. The Nature of Sovereignty Sovereignty, in the conduct of collective human activity, is the right of a people or a government to conduct its internal affairs in accordance with its discrete rulemaking mechanisms. The “sovereign,” whether a monarch, sultan, dictator, or nation-state, has the power to: make laws for the governance of a people; impose taxes; enforce laws; enter into agreements and treaties with other sovereign peoples and states; conduct national trade; raise armies and navies; act on behalf of the state in relation to other sovereigns; conduct national and internal defense for the protection of the state and its people; and acquire, own and dispose of land in the name of the sovereign by right of purchase, conquest or discovery.
A national government must act on behalf of the population it governs in its relations with foreign powers and as an internal organizing force for the management of a society. It is invested with independence and the power to act for a people. The incidents of sovereignty, therefore, are all powers necessary for the advancement of a nation. Government’s overarching jurisdiction invests it with coercive power sufficient for the protection of its citizens, though our government is founded on the principle that its legitimate purpose is the protection of individual liberty.
2. Sovereign Acquisition of Territory
a) Acquisition by Conquest
Until the rise of empire, collective human affairs were tribal, ethnic, and relatively small. Early annals of tribal conflict indicate that tribes or city-states engaged in wars that resulted in conquest and the concomitant acquisition of the land of those they conquered. With the rise of empire began the collection and organization of large multi-ethnic populations and the acquisition of huge territories. No one questioned the legitimacy of territorial acquisition by right of conquest, and no legal mechanism existed for contesting the seizure of land through force. Imperial expansion, then, was largely carried out by conquest among competing empires.
b) Acquisition by Discovery
Later, during the Age of Discovery, a theory arose that was largely accepted by the leading imperial powers: acquisition by right of discovery. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 began the international codification of what had previously been an assumption: that nations can engage in territorial expansion by right of discovery.
In Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,16 Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
But as [the European Powers] were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.17
c) Title to Unoccupied Colonial Lands Vested in the Crown by Discovery
Thus did the British Empire lay claim to much of North America and exercised its sovereign privilege by asserting title to all “unoccupied” land.
According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, as representing the nation, and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the Crown as a branch of the royal prerogative [sovereignty].
The British Empire successively claimed all lands described in the royal charters that established its colonies in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Massachusetts by right of Crown sovereignty.
It is a settled doctrine with us that all valid individual title to land within the United States is derived from grants from or under the authority of the governments of England, Sweden, Holland, France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, the chartered and crown colonies or the Government of the United States and the several States of the Union.
The English possessions in America were claimed by right of discovery. Having been discovered by the subjects of the King of England and taken possession of same in his name, by his authority or with his assent, they were held by the King as the representative of and in trust for the nation; all vacant lands, and the exclusive power to grant them, were vested in him. (The Public Domain, It’s History; Thomas Donaldson: Report to House of Representatives of the United States of America; Public Lands Commission, 1884, page 158. Hereafter “Donaldson”)
3. Nature of Land Ownership in Colonial North America
a) Socage and the Sovereignty of the Crown Over Land
Under the charter of King James I, the lands of the first and second colonies of Virginia were to be held by the mildest form of feudal tenure, “free and common socage.” Under this regime, title to land continued to rest in the sovereign and those granted tenure received it subject to the rendering of duties to the landholding lord (the Crown of England, in most cases). Blackstone described it as follows:
Socage, in its most general and extensive signification, seems to denote a tenure by any certain or determinate service. And in this sense it is by our ancient writers constantly put in opposition to chivalry, or knight-service, where the render was precarious and uncertain.
Landholding in the colonies under “socage” was a lesser form of right than that known today. It was not quite fee simple ownership, in that it confirmed the sovereign rights of the Crown, and the Crown’s sovereign ownership of the land. “The usual tenure of the colonial grants, after Raleigh’s first one, was free and common socage.” This confirmed the primacy of the Crown and its ownership of land, occupied and otherwise, as an incident of its sovereignty.
b) Abolishment of Feudal Ownership
This Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted by the Confederation Congress, was the first general legislation in the United States on the subject of real property and it changed the nature of land ownership throughout the now free States. After the American Revolution, most of the States abolished all forms of feudal ownership, including free and common socage, and the Northwest Ordinance abolished the practice as a matter of national policy.
4. Independence In 1774, the Royal Colonies met in convention, referred to as the “Continental Congress,” to discuss their joint grievances with the Crown. The convention drafted documents of protest at the colonies’ treatment at the hands of the Crown. When the colonists’ remonstrances were unsuccessful, a second convention was called and representatives of all the colonies attended.
The Second Continental Congress served as a convention of colonies – soon to be independent States – to seek ways to act jointly with respect to issues of common concern. It was a conclave of separate and independent colonies intended to move those colonies to act in concert with one another with respect to colonial relations with the Crown. It convened in the summer of 1775, some months after armed hostilities signaled that the American war for independence had begun. Its delegates, again chosen by their respective colonies, represented the separate interests of their respective colonies.
On May 6, 1776, Virginia declared its independence from the Crown, and the other colonies followed on July 4, 1776. By these acts, the colonies effectively became free and independent nations inheriting all sovereign rights and powers of the Crown within their borders.
In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.
5. The Original States Succeeded to Ownership of all Crown Land The term “state” -- meaning “a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government”31 -- was purposefully chosen by the Founders to signify that each colony was a sovereign body enjoying all powers of sovereignty inhering in nation-states. The term “nation-state” was a topic of considerable discussion in the 18th Century and enjoyed broad intellectual and political currency. It was intended to describe a discrete, independent government exercising exclusive jurisdiction over a defined geographical area. The new “states” adopted the title to describe what they intended as the nature of the newly sovereign States. Each State operated (and still operates) independently of every other State. Each established and maintained separate court systems, legislatures, executives, regulatory schemes, systems of taxation and governance, criminal and civil laws, voting qualifications, and so forth.
The separate and complete sovereignty of the original States was sufficiently important to the founding generation that they enshrined it in their first formal treaty, the Articles of Confederation, Article II. The States’ succession to the sovereignty of the Crown has repeatedly been reaffirmed by the Court. As independent sovereigns, the States established separate governments; adopted State constitutions; enacted criminal and civil statutes; imposed taxes and imposts; established and maintained courts; and succeeded to all other incidents and prerogatives of the sovereignty previously enjoyed by the Crown in North America, including ownership of all vacant and unappropriated land within their borders.
Each of the original thirteen States – and the three that followed, Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – succeeded to ownership of all vacant, unappropriated Crown lands and disposed of same over time for their own part thereafter.
6. Conflicting Western Land Claims Both before and after independence, the States competed with one another in commerce and trade, foreign policy, and territory. The States had their own monetary systems and placed tariffs on the trade of goods between one another. Each raised its own militia and maintained its own defenses.
No area of controversy was more heated than the landed States’ claims to the “Western Lands,” consisting mainly of what were referred to as “vast waste lands” east of the Mississippi River and south of Canada. Of the thirteen colonies, six had carefully defined western borders and no claims to any western lands, while seven asserted colorable claims to the western lands. Three – Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia -- laid claim to land extending to the Pacific Ocean. Virginia, the first colony, had vast land claims -- as far north as present-day Canada and as far west as present day California -- and jealously guarded those claims. The map below illustrates various conflicting claims east of the Mississippi and cessions to the Federal government circa 1782 to 1802.
In 1774, when the First Continental Congress was assembled, the continent was rife with competing claims to western lands and sometimes pointed debate among the colonies with respect to the defensibility of those claims. The conflict was driven, at least in part, by an appreciation of the tremendous wealth the lands represented. The conflicts also encouraged separatist movements that threatened the unity and strength of the not yet fully united colonies. In addition to the problems created by the conflicting claims among the “landed” States to western lands, the very fact that these claims were made created problems between the “landed States,” on the one hand, and the “landlocked States” on the other. Maryland was the first to express its great concern that the landlocked States would be politically and economically consumed by their larger neighbors. The conflicting interests related to the western lands seemed insurmountable. Just when the colonies most needed unity, they became paralyzed over an impasse with respect to the western lands issue. We describe the Western Lands Impasse and its resolution in detail because it is critical to the proper understanding of the Equal Sovereignty Principle, the Equal Footing Doctrine, and the Property Clause.
(End of the Historical Background Part 1 excerpt of the Legal Analysis)
Time to Take ActionOver the coming days, follow this UT TPL Legal Analysis Blog as we review section by section this groundbreaking Legal Analysis that is opening the door to advance the only solution big enough for the environmental, economic and constitutional predicaments facing our nation -- #FreeTheLands for more effective, locally driven management of our unique western lands!
Be sure to share this blog with everyone you know (especially your local, state, and national representative and leaders) who desire to be part of unleashing a constitutional and economic renaissance in our nation.
Most importantly, Click here to Get Involved today!
In our unique system of government, WE are the Boss. But, if we want to be treated like the Boss, WE have to act like the Boss!
There will be many in 2016 at the local, state and national levels who will be applying (campaigning) for a job to represent you. Make sure they have the Knowledge and Courage to be a modern-day Thomas Hart Benton, relentlessly committed do their utmost to #FreeTheLands!
American Lands Council
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/American Lands Council · 859 W South Jordan Pkwy, 100, South Jordan, UT 84095, United States
(End of the Historical Background Part 1 excerpt of the Legal Analysis)
Time to Take ActionOver the coming days, follow this UT TPL Legal Analysis Blog as we review section by section this groundbreaking Legal Analysis that is opening the door to advance the only solution big enough for the environmental, economic and constitutional predicaments facing our nation -- #FreeTheLands for more effective, locally driven management of our unique western lands!
Be sure to share this blog with everyone you know (especially your local, state, and national representative and leaders) who desire to be part of unleashing a constitutional and economic renaissance in our nation.
Most importantly, Click here to Get Involved today!
In our unique system of government, WE are the Boss. But, if we want to be treated like the Boss, WE have to act like the Boss!
There will be many in 2016 at the local, state and national levels who will be applying (campaigning) for a job to represent you. Make sure they have the Knowledge and Courage to be a modern-day Thomas Hart Benton, relentlessly committed do their utmost to #FreeTheLands!
American Lands Council
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/American Lands Council · 859 W South Jordan Pkwy, 100, South Jordan, UT 84095, United States
Constitutionality of Planned Parenthood Defunding Plans
Kick the federal government out of their State in regards to Planned Parenthood, abortion, any and all health services, health programs, health care, or health insurance intrusions
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74871
Kick the federal government out of their State in regards to Planned Parenthood, abortion, any and all health services, health programs, health care, or health insurance intrusions
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74871
The Crowding-Out Tipping Point
Increasing economic growth means shrinking government
JANUARY 19, 2015 by JAMES A. DORN
The size and scope of government in the United States today would have been beyond the imagination of the American founders. For more than a century after the Constitution’s ratification, Americans took limits on government power seriously.
At the start of the 20th century, total government spending was less than 10 percent of GDP, with the majority of spending taking place at the state and local levels. In 1900, federal spending was a mere 2.8 percent of GDP compared to 21.1 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, state and local spending stood at 5 percent of GDP in 1900, but reached 11.5 percent in 2014. Overall government spending now stands at nearly 33 percent of GDP.
That tectonic shift is largely due to the growth of entitlements and the regulatory state. Nearly half of federal spending goes toward Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; government imposes huge regulatory costs on the private sector; and the higher taxes needed to finance big government erode economic incentives to work, save, and invest.
How big is too big?
There is a growing body of evidence that bigger government means slower growth of real GDP. Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, estimated to be from 15 percent to 25 percent of GDP, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. An overreaching government diminishes economic freedom and limits private exchange opportunities, restricting the range of choices open to individuals.
In a pioneering study of the link between government growth and national wealth, which appeared in the fall 1998 issue of the Cato Journal, economists James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson found that a 10 percentage point increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP decreases real GDP growth by 1 percentage point. Thus, if government spending went from 25 percent of GDP to 35 percent, real GDP growth would slow over the longer term by a full percentage point. They also found that a 10 percentage point increase in the government’s share of GDP lowered private investment by 1.6 percentage points.
Factors of growth
One of their study’s key findings was that secure property rights — which includes a legal system that protects persons and property, enforces contracts, and limits the power of government by a just rule of law — play an important role in promoting economic growth.
The late Bernhard Heitger, an economist at the Kiel Institute for World Economics, more fully developed the positive relationship between property rights and economic growth in his pathbreaking article in the winter 2004 Cato Journal. In that article, Heitger distinguished between proximate and ultimate determinants of economic growth. The former are well known: additions to physical and human capital and technological progress (also known as “total factor productivity”). But Heitger was interested in the question of what drives capital accumulation and innovation. His answer: the structure of property rights and the associated incentives.
Conventional growth theory took private property rights and incentives as givens. Heitger rigorously showed that private property rights and the rule of law are the ultimate sources of economic growth and the wealth of nations. Well-defined private property rights improve efficiency and increase per capita income. In turn, as a nation grows richer, people demand stronger protection of their property rights, advancing institutional change.
Using data from an international cross-section of countries from 1975–95, Heitger found that “a doubling of the property rights index more than doubles per capita income” and that “more secure property rights significantly raise the accumulation of physical and human capital.”
Bauer’s foresight
That outcome would not have surprised Peter Bauer, a pioneer of development economics. He was critical of the simplistic idea that physical capital accumulation is the key determinant of economic growth. As early as 1957, in his classic Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, Bauer noted:
It is misleading to think of investment as the only or the principal determinant of development. Other factors and influences, such as institutional and political forces, the qualities and attitudes of the population, and the supply of complementary resources, are often equally important or even more important.
In the same book, Bauer also anticipated modern endogenous growth theory, stating: “It is more meaningful to say that capital is created in the process of development, rather than that development is a function of capital.” What mattered to Bauer, and to other classical liberals, in the process of development was freedom — namely, the freedom to pursue one’s happiness without government interference except to protect life, liberty, and property. (See James A. Dorn, “Economic Development and Freedom: The Legacy of Peter Bauer.”)
In that sense, Bauer argued that “the principal objective and criterion of economic development” is “the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people.” Free markets — resting on effective private property rights — and free people are thus the ultimate determinants of economic growth. When government expands beyond its core functions, it undermines the primacy of property, diminishes the principle of freedom, and erodes the wealth of nations.
The United States falls
The loss of economic freedom in the United States is revealed in the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute along with the Cato Institute and a number of global think tanks. In 2000, the United States was the second most economically free country in the world, based on data from 1998. Today it is ranked 12th, based on 2012 data.
To move up the freedom ladder, the United States needs to change the climate of ideas and recognize the importance of private property rights and the rule of law. A legal framework that safeguards persons and property means incentivizing individuals to take responsibility for their actions and allowing people to learn from their mistakes. It means cutting back the size and scope of government and not bailing out businesses.
The nature of government is coercion; the nature of the market is consent. The “great constitutional charter” that George Washington referred to in his first inaugural address (April 30, 1789) was intended to bind Congress to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson reiterated Washington’s admonition by stating in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1801): “The sum of good government” is “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Wise and frugal
The challenge for the 114th Congress is to return to “a wise and frugal government.” A first step would be to understand the detrimental effects of expanding government power on economic liberties — especially on private property rights. If history has taught us anything, it is that the size and scope of government matter, both for freedom and prosperity.
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-crowding-out-tipping-point?utm_source=Foundation+for+Economic+Education+Current+Contacts&utm_campaign=3084d4ddc5-In_Brief_1_19_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_77ef1bd48e-3084d4ddc5-14101597
JANUARY 19, 2015 by JAMES A. DORN
The size and scope of government in the United States today would have been beyond the imagination of the American founders. For more than a century after the Constitution’s ratification, Americans took limits on government power seriously.
At the start of the 20th century, total government spending was less than 10 percent of GDP, with the majority of spending taking place at the state and local levels. In 1900, federal spending was a mere 2.8 percent of GDP compared to 21.1 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, state and local spending stood at 5 percent of GDP in 1900, but reached 11.5 percent in 2014. Overall government spending now stands at nearly 33 percent of GDP.
That tectonic shift is largely due to the growth of entitlements and the regulatory state. Nearly half of federal spending goes toward Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; government imposes huge regulatory costs on the private sector; and the higher taxes needed to finance big government erode economic incentives to work, save, and invest.
How big is too big?
There is a growing body of evidence that bigger government means slower growth of real GDP. Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, estimated to be from 15 percent to 25 percent of GDP, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. An overreaching government diminishes economic freedom and limits private exchange opportunities, restricting the range of choices open to individuals.
In a pioneering study of the link between government growth and national wealth, which appeared in the fall 1998 issue of the Cato Journal, economists James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson found that a 10 percentage point increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP decreases real GDP growth by 1 percentage point. Thus, if government spending went from 25 percent of GDP to 35 percent, real GDP growth would slow over the longer term by a full percentage point. They also found that a 10 percentage point increase in the government’s share of GDP lowered private investment by 1.6 percentage points.
Factors of growth
One of their study’s key findings was that secure property rights — which includes a legal system that protects persons and property, enforces contracts, and limits the power of government by a just rule of law — play an important role in promoting economic growth.
The late Bernhard Heitger, an economist at the Kiel Institute for World Economics, more fully developed the positive relationship between property rights and economic growth in his pathbreaking article in the winter 2004 Cato Journal. In that article, Heitger distinguished between proximate and ultimate determinants of economic growth. The former are well known: additions to physical and human capital and technological progress (also known as “total factor productivity”). But Heitger was interested in the question of what drives capital accumulation and innovation. His answer: the structure of property rights and the associated incentives.
Conventional growth theory took private property rights and incentives as givens. Heitger rigorously showed that private property rights and the rule of law are the ultimate sources of economic growth and the wealth of nations. Well-defined private property rights improve efficiency and increase per capita income. In turn, as a nation grows richer, people demand stronger protection of their property rights, advancing institutional change.
Using data from an international cross-section of countries from 1975–95, Heitger found that “a doubling of the property rights index more than doubles per capita income” and that “more secure property rights significantly raise the accumulation of physical and human capital.”
Bauer’s foresight
That outcome would not have surprised Peter Bauer, a pioneer of development economics. He was critical of the simplistic idea that physical capital accumulation is the key determinant of economic growth. As early as 1957, in his classic Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, Bauer noted:
It is misleading to think of investment as the only or the principal determinant of development. Other factors and influences, such as institutional and political forces, the qualities and attitudes of the population, and the supply of complementary resources, are often equally important or even more important.
In the same book, Bauer also anticipated modern endogenous growth theory, stating: “It is more meaningful to say that capital is created in the process of development, rather than that development is a function of capital.” What mattered to Bauer, and to other classical liberals, in the process of development was freedom — namely, the freedom to pursue one’s happiness without government interference except to protect life, liberty, and property. (See James A. Dorn, “Economic Development and Freedom: The Legacy of Peter Bauer.”)
In that sense, Bauer argued that “the principal objective and criterion of economic development” is “the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people.” Free markets — resting on effective private property rights — and free people are thus the ultimate determinants of economic growth. When government expands beyond its core functions, it undermines the primacy of property, diminishes the principle of freedom, and erodes the wealth of nations.
The United States falls
The loss of economic freedom in the United States is revealed in the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute along with the Cato Institute and a number of global think tanks. In 2000, the United States was the second most economically free country in the world, based on data from 1998. Today it is ranked 12th, based on 2012 data.
To move up the freedom ladder, the United States needs to change the climate of ideas and recognize the importance of private property rights and the rule of law. A legal framework that safeguards persons and property means incentivizing individuals to take responsibility for their actions and allowing people to learn from their mistakes. It means cutting back the size and scope of government and not bailing out businesses.
The nature of government is coercion; the nature of the market is consent. The “great constitutional charter” that George Washington referred to in his first inaugural address (April 30, 1789) was intended to bind Congress to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson reiterated Washington’s admonition by stating in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1801): “The sum of good government” is “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Wise and frugal
The challenge for the 114th Congress is to return to “a wise and frugal government.” A first step would be to understand the detrimental effects of expanding government power on economic liberties — especially on private property rights. If history has taught us anything, it is that the size and scope of government matter, both for freedom and prosperity.
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-crowding-out-tipping-point?utm_source=Foundation+for+Economic+Education+Current+Contacts&utm_campaign=3084d4ddc5-In_Brief_1_19_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_77ef1bd48e-3084d4ddc5-14101597
The History of CIA-Funded Foundations
Posted on September 6, 2014 by Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Who Paid the Piper: The Cultural Cold War1 by Frances Stoner Saunders (1999) is about the covert “cultural” propaganda the CIA carried out between 1950 and 1967. The Congress for Cultural Freedom, the centerpiece of this operation, had offices in 35 countries, published over 20 magazines, held art exhibitions and provided major financial support for American artists, poets, authors and playwrights. Its primary purpose was to “nudge” the intelligentsia of Western Europe away from Marxism and communism towards a more accommodating view of US interests.
At the end of World War II, Europeans tended to view the US as “a culturally barren nation of gum chewing, Chevy driving, Dupont-sheathed Philistines.” To counteract this stigma, Truman issued an appendix to executive order NSC-4A, directing the CIA director to undertake covert psychological activities in support of American anti-Communist policies.
As Saunders details, this strategy included CIA support for both US and foreign Non-Communist Left (NCL) organizations, trade unions who agreed to weed out “dangerous radicals” and leftist intellectuals. The rationale was to create and support “parallel” organizations to provide an alternative to Communist groups over which the CIA had no control.
Arthur_Schlesinger,_Jr._NBC-TV_program_1951
Who Paid the Piper: The Cultural Cold War1 by Frances Stoner Saunders (1999) is about the covert “cultural” propaganda the CIA carried out between 1950 and 1967. The Congress for Cultural Freedom, the centerpiece of this operation, had offices in 35 countries, published over 20 magazines, held art exhibitions and provided major financial support for American artists, poets, authors and playwrights. Its primary purpose was to “nudge” the intelligentsia of Western Europe away from Marxism and communism towards a more accommodating view of US interests.
At the end of World War II, Europeans tended to view the US as “a culturally barren nation of gum chewing, Chevy driving, Dupont-sheathed Philistines.” To counteract this stigma, Truman issued an appendix to executive order NSC-4A, directing the CIA director to undertake covert psychological activities in support of American anti-Communist policies.
As Saunders details, this strategy included CIA support for both US and foreign Non-Communist Left (NCL) organizations, trade unions who agreed to weed out “dangerous radicals” and leftist intellectuals. The rationale was to create and support “parallel” organizations to provide an alternative to Communist groups over which the CIA had no control.
Arthur_Schlesinger,_Jr._NBC-TV_program_1951
Arthur Schlesinger
A strong advocate of this approach was “liberal” Kennedy adviser and biographer Arthur Schlesinger, a long time member of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. He was one of the few non non-CIA employees Congress members who knew the CIA was running it. Schlesinger also sat on the executive committee of Radio Free Europe, which the CIA set up in 1950.
No Budgetary Limits or Oversight
Over the next two decades the CIA acted as a de facto ministry of culture, pumping millions of dollars into the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The Congress had no budgetary limits and was accountable to no one for the way they spent their money.
Via the this front organization, the CIA built the reputations of numerous American composers by funding European premiers of their work. Among the most prominent were Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, George Gershwin, Menotti and Aaron Copeland.
They also financed European performances of American plays, in essence solidifying the careers of Lillian Hellman, Eugene O’Neill, Thorton Wilder, Tennessee Williams, William Saroyan, Clifford Odets, and John Steinbeck.
And paid for the European distribution of American books, by authors such as Louisa May Alcott, Faulkner, Hemingway, James Thurber, Edith Wharton, Thomas Wolfe, T.S. Eliot and socialists Norman Cousins and Carl Sandburg.
The Wall Street Families Who Started the CIA
Who Paid the Piper focuses heavily on the personalities of the men who founded the Office for Strategic Services (OSS), which in 1947 would evolve into the CIA. Nearly all were from wealthy Ivy League and Wall Street families who attended the same cocktail parties and sent their kids to the same prep schools. They automatically identified the “American way” with the privileges of their class, including a well-rounded classical education. During this period, it was fairly common for high level CIA officers to edit literary magazines, as well as publishing poetry and fiction and writing book reviews for the New York Times.
Over the next two decades the CIA acted as a de facto ministry of culture, pumping millions of dollars into the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The Congress had no budgetary limits and was accountable to no one for the way they spent their money.
Via the this front organization, the CIA built the reputations of numerous American composers by funding European premiers of their work. Among the most prominent were Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, George Gershwin, Menotti and Aaron Copeland.
They also financed European performances of American plays, in essence solidifying the careers of Lillian Hellman, Eugene O’Neill, Thorton Wilder, Tennessee Williams, William Saroyan, Clifford Odets, and John Steinbeck.
And paid for the European distribution of American books, by authors such as Louisa May Alcott, Faulkner, Hemingway, James Thurber, Edith Wharton, Thomas Wolfe, T.S. Eliot and socialists Norman Cousins and Carl Sandburg.
The Wall Street Families Who Started the CIA
Who Paid the Piper focuses heavily on the personalities of the men who founded the Office for Strategic Services (OSS), which in 1947 would evolve into the CIA. Nearly all were from wealthy Ivy League and Wall Street families who attended the same cocktail parties and sent their kids to the same prep schools. They automatically identified the “American way” with the privileges of their class, including a well-rounded classical education. During this period, it was fairly common for high level CIA officers to edit literary magazines, as well as publishing poetry and fiction and writing book reviews for the New York Times.
The Rise of CIA-Funded Foundations
Tom Braden
Although Tom Braden, director of the CIA’s International Operations Division (IOD), ran the Congress, on paper it appeared to drive its funding from “pass-through” foundations. The best known foundations serving as a conduit for covert CIA funds were (are?) the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kaplan Foundation, the Whitney Trust and the Farfield Foundation. Many of these foundations set up separate administrative units to handle CIA pass through money and collaborate with them on specific projects.
Arthur Schlesinger sat on the board of Farfield Foundation, as did William van den Heuvel, another prominent liberal close to the Kennedy family (and father of Katherine van den Heuvel editor of the “left leaning” Nation magazine).
C D Jackson
C. D. Jackson, long time managing director of Time-Life International was another high profile Congress member.2 The Congress also assigned a full time CIA operative to Paramount pictures. His role was to edit and reject scripts that portrayed the US in an unfavorable light.
Tom Braden Goes Public
In 1966, details of the CIA role in the Congress for Cultural Freedom were leaked to the radical zine Ramparts and ended up as a New York Times expose. A few months later Braden, who left the CIA in 1956, published a confessional in the Saturday Evening Post. In “I’m Glad the CIA is Immoral,” he brags about all the reporters and trade unions on the CIA payroll when he ran the OID.
A growing body of research indicates that the CIA continues to fund the Non-Communist Left. Based on the work of Sherman Skolnick, Bob Feldman, Brian Salter and others who research the 990A tax returns of so-called “liberal” foundations, CIA pass-through foundations are clearly alive and well. Frequently referred to as “Left Gatekeeping Foundations,” they fund numerous so-called “alternative” media outlets. This may be why the Nation, Democracy Now, FAIR and similar outlets that rely on pass-through founding categorically refuse to cover the 9-11 Truth movement or the clear government role in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King.
1The book was published in the US under the title The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The CIA has posted a review of the US edition on website
2In 1953-54, Jackson was instrumental in establishing the Bilderberg Group. In 1963 he purchased the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination and kept it out of the public domain by locking it in a Time-Life vault for 15 years.
In the following video, liberal feminist Gloria Steinem discusses the funding she received from the CIA for her work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8
YouTube – Veterans Today -
photo credit: ford via photopin cc
photo credit: encyclopedia dubuque
photo credit: wikimedia commons
photo credit: spartacus school
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall’s article appears courtesy of Veterans Today.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/06/history-cia-funded-foundations/
In 1966, details of the CIA role in the Congress for Cultural Freedom were leaked to the radical zine Ramparts and ended up as a New York Times expose. A few months later Braden, who left the CIA in 1956, published a confessional in the Saturday Evening Post. In “I’m Glad the CIA is Immoral,” he brags about all the reporters and trade unions on the CIA payroll when he ran the OID.
A growing body of research indicates that the CIA continues to fund the Non-Communist Left. Based on the work of Sherman Skolnick, Bob Feldman, Brian Salter and others who research the 990A tax returns of so-called “liberal” foundations, CIA pass-through foundations are clearly alive and well. Frequently referred to as “Left Gatekeeping Foundations,” they fund numerous so-called “alternative” media outlets. This may be why the Nation, Democracy Now, FAIR and similar outlets that rely on pass-through founding categorically refuse to cover the 9-11 Truth movement or the clear government role in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King.
1The book was published in the US under the title The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The CIA has posted a review of the US edition on website
2In 1953-54, Jackson was instrumental in establishing the Bilderberg Group. In 1963 he purchased the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination and kept it out of the public domain by locking it in a Time-Life vault for 15 years.
In the following video, liberal feminist Gloria Steinem discusses the funding she received from the CIA for her work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8
YouTube – Veterans Today -
photo credit: ford via photopin cc
photo credit: encyclopedia dubuque
photo credit: wikimedia commons
photo credit: spartacus school
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall’s article appears courtesy of Veterans Today.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/06/history-cia-funded-foundations/
Executive Power and Overreach
May 22, 2014, Spencer Irvine
Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, gave some remarks at the Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center centered around the increase in executive power and the power of executive agencies under Republican and Democratic presidencies.
This worrisome trend, which Hamburger called “administrative law,” was supposedly “developed to deal with the problems of modern society.” Yet, in his words, this increase in administrative power “could not have been anticipated by the Constitution.” Although administrative powers are “very old,” Hamburger warned that the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers were “exactly was [what] the Constitution developed…to prohibit absolute power.”
Too often, critics of increased administrative power focus on government benefits, welfare programs and abuses, but he said, “The problem consists of attempts to bind and constrain Americans, legislatively or judicially, through acts other than acts of Congress or of the courts.” He admitted, “Our government is full of puzzles, but none are more serious than administrative power.”
This new administrative power is a “fourth type of power” in addition to the three branches of government, which are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Where did this all begin? Hamburger surmised it “begins in 1887, when Congress creates the Interstate Commerce Commission” and delegated powers to executive agencies like it. Ever since then, executive agencies have expanded and defenders say such expansion is a “pragmatic response to practical American problems in life” and a result of “indigenous or empirical growth.” This “apology for administrative power,” as Hamburger called it, empowers administrative law that “developed after the Constitution.” Supporters also push the view that opposing the expansion of administrative power “is anti-modern and [it is] quixotic to resist this power.”
But this bureaucratic overreach may not be so modern after all. There was no separation of powers in old Britain, ruled by kings, but merely a “division of power” between the king and Parliament. Under that system of government, Hamburger said, “The executive evades law with administrative power.” It became their “defense, their justification” to enact certain laws and bind their people to royal decrees.
Hamburger pointed out, “Over the past 120 years, the Americans have reestablished the very central powers the U.S. Constitution most essentially forbade.” Now, administrative power “binds Americans not through laws, but through mechanisms.” “Absolutism,” said Hamburger, “has returned.”
He urged, “Read the Constitution, read the first verse” to get that point across. He read the first verse, which says, “All legislative power shall be vested in Congress.” Hamburger said, “None of them can be elsewhere” and that these powers were “put there precisely to” protect against delegation by Congress. Now, “procedural rights” have been used by executive agencies, but had been intended to protect against absolute power. He urged, “One must take back the language of law” to limit the growth of administrative and absolute power.
http://www.academia.org/executive-power-and-overreach/
Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, gave some remarks at the Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center centered around the increase in executive power and the power of executive agencies under Republican and Democratic presidencies.
This worrisome trend, which Hamburger called “administrative law,” was supposedly “developed to deal with the problems of modern society.” Yet, in his words, this increase in administrative power “could not have been anticipated by the Constitution.” Although administrative powers are “very old,” Hamburger warned that the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers were “exactly was [what] the Constitution developed…to prohibit absolute power.”
Too often, critics of increased administrative power focus on government benefits, welfare programs and abuses, but he said, “The problem consists of attempts to bind and constrain Americans, legislatively or judicially, through acts other than acts of Congress or of the courts.” He admitted, “Our government is full of puzzles, but none are more serious than administrative power.”
This new administrative power is a “fourth type of power” in addition to the three branches of government, which are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Where did this all begin? Hamburger surmised it “begins in 1887, when Congress creates the Interstate Commerce Commission” and delegated powers to executive agencies like it. Ever since then, executive agencies have expanded and defenders say such expansion is a “pragmatic response to practical American problems in life” and a result of “indigenous or empirical growth.” This “apology for administrative power,” as Hamburger called it, empowers administrative law that “developed after the Constitution.” Supporters also push the view that opposing the expansion of administrative power “is anti-modern and [it is] quixotic to resist this power.”
But this bureaucratic overreach may not be so modern after all. There was no separation of powers in old Britain, ruled by kings, but merely a “division of power” between the king and Parliament. Under that system of government, Hamburger said, “The executive evades law with administrative power.” It became their “defense, their justification” to enact certain laws and bind their people to royal decrees.
Hamburger pointed out, “Over the past 120 years, the Americans have reestablished the very central powers the U.S. Constitution most essentially forbade.” Now, administrative power “binds Americans not through laws, but through mechanisms.” “Absolutism,” said Hamburger, “has returned.”
He urged, “Read the Constitution, read the first verse” to get that point across. He read the first verse, which says, “All legislative power shall be vested in Congress.” Hamburger said, “None of them can be elsewhere” and that these powers were “put there precisely to” protect against delegation by Congress. Now, “procedural rights” have been used by executive agencies, but had been intended to protect against absolute power. He urged, “One must take back the language of law” to limit the growth of administrative and absolute power.
http://www.academia.org/executive-power-and-overreach/
Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under ObamacareAvik Roy, Contributor
On Wednesday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testified before Congress about the continuing issues with the rollout of Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. “Hold me accountable for the debacle,” said Sebelius. “I’m responsible.” I attended the hearing, and I was struck by the scope, scale, and depth of the health law’s problems, problems that far exceed any one political appointee. But Obamacare’s disruption of the existing health insurance market—a disruption codified in law, and known to the administration—is only just beginning. And it’s far broader than recent media coverage has implied. |
|
Obama administration knew that Obamacare would disrupt private plans
If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.
On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted to minimize the disruption issue, arguing that it only affected people who buy insurance on their own. “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days, you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population.” (5 percent of the population happens to be 15 million people, no small number, but let’s leave that aside.)
By “coverage of this issue,” Carney was referring to two articles. The first, by Chad Terhune of the Los Angeles Times, described a number of Californians who are seeing their existing plans terminated and replaced with much more expensive ones. “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,” said one.
The second article, by Lisa Myers and Hanna Rappleye of NBC News, unearthed the aforementioned commentary in the Federal Register, and cited “four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act” as saying that “50 to 75 percent” of people who buy coverage on their own are likely to receive cancellation notices due to Obamacare.
VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XU1QttlPMLk
Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled
But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.
“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.
How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.
Will these canceled plans be replaced with better coverage?
President Obama’s famous promise that “you could keep your plan” was not some naïve error or accident. He, and his allies, knew that previous Democratic attempts at health reform had failed because Americans were happy with the coverage they had, and opposed efforts to change the existing system.
Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”
But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price. Bob Laszewski, in a revealing blog post, wrote about the cancellation of his own health coverage. “Right now,” he wrote, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance. I can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network—about every doc and hospital in America—without a referral and without higher deductibles and co-pays.”
But his plan is being canceled. His new, Obamacare-compatible plan has a $500 higher deductible, and a narrower physician and hospital network that restricts out-of-town providers. And yet it costs 66 percent more than his current plan. “Mr. President,” he writes, “I really like my health plan and I would like to keep it. Can you help me out here?”
VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KoV0NeHNklk
Congress proposes a straightforward solution
Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wisc.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) have proposed the “If You Like Your Health Care Plan You Can Keep It Act,” with dozens of co-sponsors. The two-page bill simply states that “nothing in [the Affordable Care Act] shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled during any part of the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2013.”
Some Senate Democrats are jumping on the grandfathering bandwagon. Mary Landrieu (D., La.), locked in a competitive reelection race against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), now claims that she was unaware that Obamacare would disrupt existing insurance arrangements. “It was our understanding when we voted for that bill that people when they have insurance could keep with what they had. So I’m going to be working on that fix,” she said on Wednesday.
But that’s not accurate. It was well known, as far back as 2009, that millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage under the Obamacare bill. Landrieu still voted for it. In September of 2010, Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced legislation that would protect small businesses from losing their health plans’ grandfathered status under Obamacare. Landrieu voted against the bill, on a party-line vote.
But Landrieu’s flip-flop illustrates the potency of this issue. If Americans were truly being forced off of their existing insurance plans—that they like—and into better and more affordable ones, the outcry would be minimal. But that isn’t what’s happening. People are being forced into inferior and costlier plans. And they’re making their displeasure felt in Washington.
UPDATE 1: Several Obamacare defenders are making the argument that it doesn’t matter that Obamacare disrupts pre-existing employer-sponsored coverage arrangements, because the degree of disruption is not as severe as in the individual market. “They have to buy new plans,” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber told Ryan Lizza, “but they will be pretty similar to what they had before. It will essentially be relabeling.”
That’s not accurate. It is accurate to say that, unlike in the individual market, where many healthy people face a doubling of their insurance premiums, premiums in the employer-sponsored market may only go up by 15 percent or so. But they will still go up, and the features of the Obamacare-compliant plans may not fit individuals’ needs as well as the old plans did.
That’s why Delta Air Lines will spend $100 million more on health care for its workers next year, and why labor unions have said that Obamacare will drive costs of some of their employer-sponsored plans to “unsupportable levels.”
The President’s promise was “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” Gruber’s semicolons and asterisks had not been supplied, and if they had been, the law would never have been passed. In addition, given the extremely high cost of employer-sponsored coverage today, a 15 percent increase is hardly trivial, and goes against the promise that the “Affordable Care Act” would make health insurance…more affordable.
UPDATE 2: In a front-page story, the Wall Street Journal confirms that Obama policy advisers always knew that the “like your plan” promise wasn’t honest, but that the President’s political aides insisted on the categorical promise, because a more accurate statement would have imperiled the passage of the law:
The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.
The breadth of Mr. Obama’s statement proved to be a miscalculation. Mr. Obama repeated the claim, with only occasional caveats, through this week, when a flurry of cancellation notices from insurers to customers around the country prompted him to recalibrate.
One of Mickey Kaus’ commenters notes that it’s not just that Obama failed to keep his promise–it’s that Obamacare’s policy success requires the disruption of current plans:
“This is very disturbing…The problem is not simply that he said one thing and then did the opposite, but rather that he knew when saying it the first times that the more young people kept their existing insurance coverage the harder it would be to control the costs of the increased coverage for older and more at-risk people under the new law. Thus he knew that the more he kept his promise the more trouble he could be in. And therefore it has to be said that he knew when he was promising that he would do his damndest to break the promise. He knew not only that it was not going to be true but also that he would be the chief actor in its not being true. This deserves not four Pinocchios, but eight, or fifteen, or fifty.”
INVESTORS’ NOTE: The biggest publicly-traded players in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges are Aetna (NYSE:AET), Humana (NYSE:HUM), Cigna (NYSE:CI), Molina (NYSE:MOH), WellPoint (NYSE:WLP), and Centene (NYSE:CNC), in order of the number of uninsured exchange-eligible Americans for whom their plans are available.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/
Additional Resources:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304073204579169711152265686
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/leaked-memos-reveal-that-federal-health
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/16/two-new-polls-tell-us-americans-are-very-very-confused-about-obamacare/
If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.
On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted to minimize the disruption issue, arguing that it only affected people who buy insurance on their own. “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days, you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population.” (5 percent of the population happens to be 15 million people, no small number, but let’s leave that aside.)
By “coverage of this issue,” Carney was referring to two articles. The first, by Chad Terhune of the Los Angeles Times, described a number of Californians who are seeing their existing plans terminated and replaced with much more expensive ones. “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,” said one.
The second article, by Lisa Myers and Hanna Rappleye of NBC News, unearthed the aforementioned commentary in the Federal Register, and cited “four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act” as saying that “50 to 75 percent” of people who buy coverage on their own are likely to receive cancellation notices due to Obamacare.
VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XU1QttlPMLk
Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled
But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.
“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.
How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.
Will these canceled plans be replaced with better coverage?
President Obama’s famous promise that “you could keep your plan” was not some naïve error or accident. He, and his allies, knew that previous Democratic attempts at health reform had failed because Americans were happy with the coverage they had, and opposed efforts to change the existing system.
Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”
But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price. Bob Laszewski, in a revealing blog post, wrote about the cancellation of his own health coverage. “Right now,” he wrote, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance. I can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network—about every doc and hospital in America—without a referral and without higher deductibles and co-pays.”
But his plan is being canceled. His new, Obamacare-compatible plan has a $500 higher deductible, and a narrower physician and hospital network that restricts out-of-town providers. And yet it costs 66 percent more than his current plan. “Mr. President,” he writes, “I really like my health plan and I would like to keep it. Can you help me out here?”
VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KoV0NeHNklk
Congress proposes a straightforward solution
Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wisc.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) have proposed the “If You Like Your Health Care Plan You Can Keep It Act,” with dozens of co-sponsors. The two-page bill simply states that “nothing in [the Affordable Care Act] shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled during any part of the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2013.”
Some Senate Democrats are jumping on the grandfathering bandwagon. Mary Landrieu (D., La.), locked in a competitive reelection race against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), now claims that she was unaware that Obamacare would disrupt existing insurance arrangements. “It was our understanding when we voted for that bill that people when they have insurance could keep with what they had. So I’m going to be working on that fix,” she said on Wednesday.
But that’s not accurate. It was well known, as far back as 2009, that millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage under the Obamacare bill. Landrieu still voted for it. In September of 2010, Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced legislation that would protect small businesses from losing their health plans’ grandfathered status under Obamacare. Landrieu voted against the bill, on a party-line vote.
But Landrieu’s flip-flop illustrates the potency of this issue. If Americans were truly being forced off of their existing insurance plans—that they like—and into better and more affordable ones, the outcry would be minimal. But that isn’t what’s happening. People are being forced into inferior and costlier plans. And they’re making their displeasure felt in Washington.
UPDATE 1: Several Obamacare defenders are making the argument that it doesn’t matter that Obamacare disrupts pre-existing employer-sponsored coverage arrangements, because the degree of disruption is not as severe as in the individual market. “They have to buy new plans,” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber told Ryan Lizza, “but they will be pretty similar to what they had before. It will essentially be relabeling.”
That’s not accurate. It is accurate to say that, unlike in the individual market, where many healthy people face a doubling of their insurance premiums, premiums in the employer-sponsored market may only go up by 15 percent or so. But they will still go up, and the features of the Obamacare-compliant plans may not fit individuals’ needs as well as the old plans did.
That’s why Delta Air Lines will spend $100 million more on health care for its workers next year, and why labor unions have said that Obamacare will drive costs of some of their employer-sponsored plans to “unsupportable levels.”
The President’s promise was “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” Gruber’s semicolons and asterisks had not been supplied, and if they had been, the law would never have been passed. In addition, given the extremely high cost of employer-sponsored coverage today, a 15 percent increase is hardly trivial, and goes against the promise that the “Affordable Care Act” would make health insurance…more affordable.
UPDATE 2: In a front-page story, the Wall Street Journal confirms that Obama policy advisers always knew that the “like your plan” promise wasn’t honest, but that the President’s political aides insisted on the categorical promise, because a more accurate statement would have imperiled the passage of the law:
The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.
The breadth of Mr. Obama’s statement proved to be a miscalculation. Mr. Obama repeated the claim, with only occasional caveats, through this week, when a flurry of cancellation notices from insurers to customers around the country prompted him to recalibrate.
One of Mickey Kaus’ commenters notes that it’s not just that Obama failed to keep his promise–it’s that Obamacare’s policy success requires the disruption of current plans:
“This is very disturbing…The problem is not simply that he said one thing and then did the opposite, but rather that he knew when saying it the first times that the more young people kept their existing insurance coverage the harder it would be to control the costs of the increased coverage for older and more at-risk people under the new law. Thus he knew that the more he kept his promise the more trouble he could be in. And therefore it has to be said that he knew when he was promising that he would do his damndest to break the promise. He knew not only that it was not going to be true but also that he would be the chief actor in its not being true. This deserves not four Pinocchios, but eight, or fifteen, or fifty.”
INVESTORS’ NOTE: The biggest publicly-traded players in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges are Aetna (NYSE:AET), Humana (NYSE:HUM), Cigna (NYSE:CI), Molina (NYSE:MOH), WellPoint (NYSE:WLP), and Centene (NYSE:CNC), in order of the number of uninsured exchange-eligible Americans for whom their plans are available.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/
Additional Resources:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304073204579169711152265686
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/leaked-memos-reveal-that-federal-health
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/16/two-new-polls-tell-us-americans-are-very-very-confused-about-obamacare/
Judges Getting Dumber as Courts Growing More Powerful, Economist Says
As courts have become more powerful, the federal judiciary is no longer filled with the best and the brightest because U.S. senators are blocking qualified nominees, one economist says.
Judges using their position on the bench to push a political agenda is nothing new, but their ability to do so has become greater with the increased size of government, said John Lott, author of “Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keep the Smartest Judges off ....” This means the stakes of a judicial confirmation process are much higher.
“You can understand why political opponents object to putting a smart person, someone who writes well and is influential, on the court. There are more cases that are more important as the federal government has grown,” Lott told TheBlaze.
With higher stakes, Lott said that a smart judicial nominee has both the ability to influence fellow judges on the court, and to write decisions that could sway future legal opinions. Therefore, politicians have a larger incentive to block smarter nominees. The book addresses the entire federal judiciary; district, appellate and the Supreme Court.
The higher stakes are evident in recent high court rulings, including this year’s same-sex marriage decisions, President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Citizens United case on political speech and the D.C. v. Heller gun rights case. The Supreme Court is expected to soon weigh in on abortion laws enacted at the state level and state voter ID laws challenged by the Justice Department.
Lott has taught economics at Yale, the University of Chicago, Stanford, the University of California Los Angeles, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Rice University. He was the chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 1988 to 1989 and is the author of eight books, including “More Guns, Less Crime.”
Blocking the most qualified jurists gained more public attention in 1987, with the rejection of President Reagan’s high court nominee Robert Bork – a process filled with personal attacks that spawned the term “Borking.”
Lott said it is a problem with both sides of the political aisle, and pointed to at least one case where Democrats backed a Republican nominee who was not perceived to be a great legal mind.
“A counter example is Harriet Miers,” Lott said of the failed Supreme Court nominee of President Bush in 2006. “The one position that we knew she had a strong view on was abortion. That’s usually a strong litmus test for Democrats. But Democrats came out strongly in favor of her nomination. It was Republicans who defeated her nomination.”
Lott further contrasted the President Obama’s two successful Supreme Court nominees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. The Senate confirmed Sotomayor by a vote of 68-31, with nine Republicans voting for her. The Senate voted 63-37 to confirm Kagan, with five Republicans voting to confirm her.
“On the two Obama Supreme Court nominees that were confirmed by the Democratic super majority, Kagan is smarter than Sotomayor, but Sotomayor had an easier time getting confirmed,” Lott said.
At the appellate level he pointed to Obama’s stalled nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to Bush’s failed nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as examples of intellectually qualified and accomplished nominees blocked from the bench.
Lott said it’s not just the U.S. Senate, but the American Bar Association that also shows political concerns when ranking judges.
He called Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court in Chicago and Judge Harvie Wilkinson III of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. the most influential appellate court judges in the nation. But when they were nominated, they had the lowest ABA ratings of any confirmed appeals court judges, he said.
“Someone who goes to a top 10 law school, graduates at the top of their class, and clerks for a Supreme Court justice is less likely to be confirmed as someone who did not,” Lott said.
Is Big Government Making Federal Judges Stupid?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/13/judges-getting-dumber-as-courts-growing-more-powerful-economist-says/
Judges using their position on the bench to push a political agenda is nothing new, but their ability to do so has become greater with the increased size of government, said John Lott, author of “Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keep the Smartest Judges off ....” This means the stakes of a judicial confirmation process are much higher.
“You can understand why political opponents object to putting a smart person, someone who writes well and is influential, on the court. There are more cases that are more important as the federal government has grown,” Lott told TheBlaze.
With higher stakes, Lott said that a smart judicial nominee has both the ability to influence fellow judges on the court, and to write decisions that could sway future legal opinions. Therefore, politicians have a larger incentive to block smarter nominees. The book addresses the entire federal judiciary; district, appellate and the Supreme Court.
The higher stakes are evident in recent high court rulings, including this year’s same-sex marriage decisions, President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Citizens United case on political speech and the D.C. v. Heller gun rights case. The Supreme Court is expected to soon weigh in on abortion laws enacted at the state level and state voter ID laws challenged by the Justice Department.
Lott has taught economics at Yale, the University of Chicago, Stanford, the University of California Los Angeles, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Rice University. He was the chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 1988 to 1989 and is the author of eight books, including “More Guns, Less Crime.”
Blocking the most qualified jurists gained more public attention in 1987, with the rejection of President Reagan’s high court nominee Robert Bork – a process filled with personal attacks that spawned the term “Borking.”
Lott said it is a problem with both sides of the political aisle, and pointed to at least one case where Democrats backed a Republican nominee who was not perceived to be a great legal mind.
“A counter example is Harriet Miers,” Lott said of the failed Supreme Court nominee of President Bush in 2006. “The one position that we knew she had a strong view on was abortion. That’s usually a strong litmus test for Democrats. But Democrats came out strongly in favor of her nomination. It was Republicans who defeated her nomination.”
Lott further contrasted the President Obama’s two successful Supreme Court nominees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. The Senate confirmed Sotomayor by a vote of 68-31, with nine Republicans voting for her. The Senate voted 63-37 to confirm Kagan, with five Republicans voting to confirm her.
“On the two Obama Supreme Court nominees that were confirmed by the Democratic super majority, Kagan is smarter than Sotomayor, but Sotomayor had an easier time getting confirmed,” Lott said.
At the appellate level he pointed to Obama’s stalled nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to Bush’s failed nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as examples of intellectually qualified and accomplished nominees blocked from the bench.
Lott said it’s not just the U.S. Senate, but the American Bar Association that also shows political concerns when ranking judges.
He called Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court in Chicago and Judge Harvie Wilkinson III of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. the most influential appellate court judges in the nation. But when they were nominated, they had the lowest ABA ratings of any confirmed appeals court judges, he said.
“Someone who goes to a top 10 law school, graduates at the top of their class, and clerks for a Supreme Court justice is less likely to be confirmed as someone who did not,” Lott said.
Is Big Government Making Federal Judges Stupid?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/13/judges-getting-dumber-as-courts-growing-more-powerful-economist-says/
What happens to your SS money if you die before retiring?????
THIS SURE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT !!! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again. Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny? We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. Another thing - if someone died in their 50's or before, they never withdrew one cent of their social security money that they paid into all their lives - so that money just went up in smoke?
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. Now, that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?
We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless. Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!! And they can't help our own citizens in New York and New Jersey! They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was never supposed to be part of the general fund.
Our thanks to ~ Suzi ~
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again. Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny? We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. Another thing - if someone died in their 50's or before, they never withdrew one cent of their social security money that they paid into all their lives - so that money just went up in smoke?
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. Now, that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?
We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless. Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!! And they can't help our own citizens in New York and New Jersey! They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was never supposed to be part of the general fund.
Our thanks to ~ Suzi ~
Why the Banks failed for real.
Let me present a different group of thoughts and causes. This entire mess began in the term of Cater I when he encouraged the banks to make loans to Sovereign Nations so he could redirect the money from Foreign aid to domestic welfare. He then passed the Community Reinvestment act which forced banks to make mortgages in ghettos and low income areas [AKA high risk loans]. The economy tanked as nine out of the top ten Money center banks had a negative net worth. The bad non performing Sovereign Nation loans were taking the banks down and exceeded their shareholder equity. Continental Illinois Bank was going to file BK and the Senate and House banking committees ordered the FDIC to take them over. They were then ordered to pay all deposits in full even those exceeding the $ 100,000 insurance limits.
Why did the government do this? Well Continental had pieces of all those foreign loans and if they went BK those would be auctioned off and establish the true MARKET value of all those loans to Nations. This would require the Standard Accounting Board to instruct all CPA firms doing independent audits to then write down the loans from cost to market value. If this was done all commercial banks would suffer a run on them and after having loaned out 8 time deposits they were failed. So, the banking committees put the government [taxpayers] on the hook for the bill - they did not have enough guts to just use T-Bill money so they removed the usury laws and instructed the Fed to hike up interest rates so the banks interest income would go from 8% prime rate to 16.5% over night, it topped out at 21.5%. Yes, this was a tax on the consumer [taxpayers]. This allowed the banks to attract huge amounts of cash with certificates of deposits paying 16.5% interest.
Well this single action caused ripples through the economy and the financial world. The Savings and Loan industry was BK the day they removed usury as they by law were forced to have 70% of their deposits in home mortgages which averaged around 6%. So, as you can see there cost of funds went from 3% to 16.5% overnight and they were losing 10.5% on every loan yes BK. But the banking committees gave them a way forward if they were real good developers. They were permitted to build shopping centers, housing tracts, resorts and commercial industrial projects. This gave them a few years of life before the bottom fell out and the S&L industry collapsed.
Under Reagan this created a glut of homes, projects being foreclosed and they were forced to create a government agency to sell these now government owned assets. Well, this took the heat off the bad Sovereign Nation loans but interest rates stayed high and banks were taxing people for many years to pay off the bad loans. The last crash of the financials was still tied to the bad loans to Sovereigns - they were packaged and sold with the CDO and other derivatives.
This time they learned do not do it with interest rate hikes as they kill the economy so keep money cheap and hope housing and other secured loans like the Sovereigns will recover and pay the loans back at lower rates. Well no investors would buy the assets except at super discounts like some of the banks [Wells Fargo] were sold at very low prices with government guarantees to entice buyers. So, Congress banking committees and the Treasury department were directed to come up with a plan - it was TARP. The idea was to buy the bad loans and inject liquidity into the economy so business could go on. Well it did not work when they found the size and scope of the problem.
They found that the derivatives, CDO, CMO, CMB and other debt instruments were flooded with Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans which Congress was on the hook with the full faith and credit of the Federal government - now what are they forced to do.
Solution was to buy the failed companies and limit the collapse with Federal dollars. Look at the number of banks, insurance companies, auto companies, Investment bank companies [wall street]. The Congress ordered the Fed to keep interest rates low and make bad loans so they had no choice but to pick up the tab as they were behind the acts that caused the failures.
I wish I could agree that it is so simple as the elites [super rich] that engineered this after regulations were relaxed, however there is just no evidence such is even remotely true. There were many regulations in place that were NOT enforced and not even APPLIED to any audits that surely showed the exposures. The Political class engineered the entire situation from beginning to the end as they directed the banks to make known bad loans and forced Fannie and Freddie to buy these loans which they then worked with Wall Street to repackage these and sell them so Fannie and Freddie could buy more bad credit loans as Congress directed.
No fault flowed to the elite rich for all they did was sit back and wait for opportunities to present themselves to them and they then purchased banks and lots of discounted paper. Buffet purchased Well Fargo bank so there is proof that even good honest businessmen took advantage of the government failed 30 year program. When Congress fails to protect we the people - it cannot be blamed on others or the lack of the number of regulations. It is the failure of Congress who is charged with oversight of all agencies to perform even a poor degree of management. The fault is at the feet of the US Congress for they did not supervise the agencies and the Executive execution of all laws.
Now you all have my opinion of the history of failed government policy.
Magnus Colorado
Why did the government do this? Well Continental had pieces of all those foreign loans and if they went BK those would be auctioned off and establish the true MARKET value of all those loans to Nations. This would require the Standard Accounting Board to instruct all CPA firms doing independent audits to then write down the loans from cost to market value. If this was done all commercial banks would suffer a run on them and after having loaned out 8 time deposits they were failed. So, the banking committees put the government [taxpayers] on the hook for the bill - they did not have enough guts to just use T-Bill money so they removed the usury laws and instructed the Fed to hike up interest rates so the banks interest income would go from 8% prime rate to 16.5% over night, it topped out at 21.5%. Yes, this was a tax on the consumer [taxpayers]. This allowed the banks to attract huge amounts of cash with certificates of deposits paying 16.5% interest.
Well this single action caused ripples through the economy and the financial world. The Savings and Loan industry was BK the day they removed usury as they by law were forced to have 70% of their deposits in home mortgages which averaged around 6%. So, as you can see there cost of funds went from 3% to 16.5% overnight and they were losing 10.5% on every loan yes BK. But the banking committees gave them a way forward if they were real good developers. They were permitted to build shopping centers, housing tracts, resorts and commercial industrial projects. This gave them a few years of life before the bottom fell out and the S&L industry collapsed.
Under Reagan this created a glut of homes, projects being foreclosed and they were forced to create a government agency to sell these now government owned assets. Well, this took the heat off the bad Sovereign Nation loans but interest rates stayed high and banks were taxing people for many years to pay off the bad loans. The last crash of the financials was still tied to the bad loans to Sovereigns - they were packaged and sold with the CDO and other derivatives.
This time they learned do not do it with interest rate hikes as they kill the economy so keep money cheap and hope housing and other secured loans like the Sovereigns will recover and pay the loans back at lower rates. Well no investors would buy the assets except at super discounts like some of the banks [Wells Fargo] were sold at very low prices with government guarantees to entice buyers. So, Congress banking committees and the Treasury department were directed to come up with a plan - it was TARP. The idea was to buy the bad loans and inject liquidity into the economy so business could go on. Well it did not work when they found the size and scope of the problem.
They found that the derivatives, CDO, CMO, CMB and other debt instruments were flooded with Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans which Congress was on the hook with the full faith and credit of the Federal government - now what are they forced to do.
Solution was to buy the failed companies and limit the collapse with Federal dollars. Look at the number of banks, insurance companies, auto companies, Investment bank companies [wall street]. The Congress ordered the Fed to keep interest rates low and make bad loans so they had no choice but to pick up the tab as they were behind the acts that caused the failures.
I wish I could agree that it is so simple as the elites [super rich] that engineered this after regulations were relaxed, however there is just no evidence such is even remotely true. There were many regulations in place that were NOT enforced and not even APPLIED to any audits that surely showed the exposures. The Political class engineered the entire situation from beginning to the end as they directed the banks to make known bad loans and forced Fannie and Freddie to buy these loans which they then worked with Wall Street to repackage these and sell them so Fannie and Freddie could buy more bad credit loans as Congress directed.
No fault flowed to the elite rich for all they did was sit back and wait for opportunities to present themselves to them and they then purchased banks and lots of discounted paper. Buffet purchased Well Fargo bank so there is proof that even good honest businessmen took advantage of the government failed 30 year program. When Congress fails to protect we the people - it cannot be blamed on others or the lack of the number of regulations. It is the failure of Congress who is charged with oversight of all agencies to perform even a poor degree of management. The fault is at the feet of the US Congress for they did not supervise the agencies and the Executive execution of all laws.
Now you all have my opinion of the history of failed government policy.
Magnus Colorado
|
Alter or Abolish? Posted by Online Professor on August 8, 2013 at 10:50am in Taking America Back
In the Declaration of Independence one of the unalienable rights mentioned by Thomas Jefferson was the right to alter or abolish a government when it becomes tyrannical. It is not only our right, but it is our responsibility to do so. If the majority of the American people believe that our government has strayed off course, it is our job to do whatever is required to restore it to its proper function. If you believe that our form of government is broken and that it can be repaired we need to fix it,but it you believe that it is |
beyond repair we must replace it. I believe that the government that is running our country is a massive crime syndicate and that those at the controls will do whatever is necessary to maintain their grip.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence asserted that a legitimate government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. It is also self evident that we not only have the authority to grant our consent, but the right to withdraw it.
The de facto government takes the position that when we vote, we are giving our consent. We also volunteer to subject ourselves to the government's jurisdiction when we enter into adhesion contracts with them. The Constitution that was written to protect us from the abuse of power by the government now protects the corporations that have tricked us into signing.
If you believe that the government can not be repaired, you must withdraw your consent by refusing to participate in their mock elections. The Constitution clearly maintains that you have the right to enter into contracts and that you also have a right to rescind those contracts whenever you deem it necessary to do tso.
If you continue to vote, you are giving your consent to this criminal enterprise. the first step in withdrawing your consent is to cancel your voter registration contract. If you aren’t a registered voter you can’t serve on a jury or vote.. Ergo, you have eliminated any chance of gaining control of government via the jury or ballot boxes. Your only alternative: the bullet box. And though it might come to that, I think we should continue trying for a peaceful solution until the lead starts flying.
If on the other hand you believe that we can successfully take over the corporate UNITED STATES, we need to vote out all of the Congressional incumbents and replace them with men and women that will remain true and faithful to their task of serving the people. The options are to restore the integrity of the jury and ballot boxes or nullification of the 17th. Again, doing so will be contingent of unity of action bring us back to the need for the 1776 team.
The question that each of us has to answer is; should we attempt to alter or government or should we abolish it? I take the position that we should make an all out effort to repair our broken government. If we fail, then the only choices that remain will be to surrender to the forces of evil or fight another war to regain our independence.
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
The authors of the Declaration of Independence asserted that a legitimate government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. It is also self evident that we not only have the authority to grant our consent, but the right to withdraw it.
The de facto government takes the position that when we vote, we are giving our consent. We also volunteer to subject ourselves to the government's jurisdiction when we enter into adhesion contracts with them. The Constitution that was written to protect us from the abuse of power by the government now protects the corporations that have tricked us into signing.
If you believe that the government can not be repaired, you must withdraw your consent by refusing to participate in their mock elections. The Constitution clearly maintains that you have the right to enter into contracts and that you also have a right to rescind those contracts whenever you deem it necessary to do tso.
If you continue to vote, you are giving your consent to this criminal enterprise. the first step in withdrawing your consent is to cancel your voter registration contract. If you aren’t a registered voter you can’t serve on a jury or vote.. Ergo, you have eliminated any chance of gaining control of government via the jury or ballot boxes. Your only alternative: the bullet box. And though it might come to that, I think we should continue trying for a peaceful solution until the lead starts flying.
If on the other hand you believe that we can successfully take over the corporate UNITED STATES, we need to vote out all of the Congressional incumbents and replace them with men and women that will remain true and faithful to their task of serving the people. The options are to restore the integrity of the jury and ballot boxes or nullification of the 17th. Again, doing so will be contingent of unity of action bring us back to the need for the 1776 team.
The question that each of us has to answer is; should we attempt to alter or government or should we abolish it? I take the position that we should make an all out effort to repair our broken government. If we fail, then the only choices that remain will be to surrender to the forces of evil or fight another war to regain our independence.
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
What It Means to Be Sovereign
By Diane Rufino on August 2, 2013
Government in the United States requires the understanding of three terms: Self-government, sovereignty, and social compact.
Sovereignty is the inherent and independent right to do all that is necessary to govern oneself. In the United States, the People are sovereign. In fact, only the individual is truly sovereign, because only the people, and not government, have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, along with the right to protect and preserve it.
In the United States, we enjoy self-government; that is, government originates from the people, for the people – “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Government arises out of social compact. In other words, because man is a social creature, he forms together into communities. And in order that communities run smoothly and common services be provided to protect everyone’s rights and property, governments are instituted. And so, individuals delegate some of their sovereign power of self-defense and self-preservation to a government. That is why the bulk of government is always supposed to be closest to the individual, where it is most responsible and most accountable. Our rights and liberties are most protected when people have the frequent opportunity to see their elected officials and look them in the eye, and when those officials see a personal story behind acts of legislation, etc.
This is exactly what our Declaration of Independence tells us about our individual sovereignty. In the first paragraph, we are told that our sovereignty is based on Natural Law and God’s Law – “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The only rightful power our government has is the power that the People – by the consent of the governed and according to the precise language and intent of our Constitution – have temporarily delegated to it. In that grant of power, in a system based on the Sovereignty of the Individual, there is always a mechanism to take that power back. That is why the Declaration explicitly states that the People have the right to “alter or abolish” their government (when it become destructive of its aims). In fact, that right is so important and so fundamental, it is listed with the other inherent rights that individuals possess. In other words, what the Declaration is saying is that the People of the “united States” have the right to reclaim the sovereign power that they temporarily delegated to that government to govern and protect their liberties. Continue Reading → http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/what-it-means-to-be-so...
Also of interest toward thoughts of governance and independence:
Video: Ronald Reagan & John Wayne talk GOTV (Get out the Vote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQixLLwW4tU&feature=share&li...
Government in the United States requires the understanding of three terms: Self-government, sovereignty, and social compact.
Sovereignty is the inherent and independent right to do all that is necessary to govern oneself. In the United States, the People are sovereign. In fact, only the individual is truly sovereign, because only the people, and not government, have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, along with the right to protect and preserve it.
In the United States, we enjoy self-government; that is, government originates from the people, for the people – “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Government arises out of social compact. In other words, because man is a social creature, he forms together into communities. And in order that communities run smoothly and common services be provided to protect everyone’s rights and property, governments are instituted. And so, individuals delegate some of their sovereign power of self-defense and self-preservation to a government. That is why the bulk of government is always supposed to be closest to the individual, where it is most responsible and most accountable. Our rights and liberties are most protected when people have the frequent opportunity to see their elected officials and look them in the eye, and when those officials see a personal story behind acts of legislation, etc.
This is exactly what our Declaration of Independence tells us about our individual sovereignty. In the first paragraph, we are told that our sovereignty is based on Natural Law and God’s Law – “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The only rightful power our government has is the power that the People – by the consent of the governed and according to the precise language and intent of our Constitution – have temporarily delegated to it. In that grant of power, in a system based on the Sovereignty of the Individual, there is always a mechanism to take that power back. That is why the Declaration explicitly states that the People have the right to “alter or abolish” their government (when it become destructive of its aims). In fact, that right is so important and so fundamental, it is listed with the other inherent rights that individuals possess. In other words, what the Declaration is saying is that the People of the “united States” have the right to reclaim the sovereign power that they temporarily delegated to that government to govern and protect their liberties. Continue Reading → http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/what-it-means-to-be-so...
Also of interest toward thoughts of governance and independence:
Video: Ronald Reagan & John Wayne talk GOTV (Get out the Vote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQixLLwW4tU&feature=share&li...
Ronald Wilson Reagan
A Time for Choosing, aka The Speech, 1964
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/ronald-wilson-reagan/the-1964-...
Ronald Reagan talked to All Americans and Embraced them with His Words.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/ronald-wilson-reagan/the-1964-...
Ronald Reagan talked to All Americans and Embraced them with His Words.
Stopping Government Abuse
July 25, 2013 4:00 AM
Stopping Government Abuse
Congress should act now to curb the power that the federal government has over citizens.
We still have not gotten to the bottom of the IRS scandal, as even White House press secretary Jay Carney admitted on Wednesday. House Republicans must continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and overcome the obstruction of House Democrats. What we already know about the scandal, though, is that we have given the IRS and the federal government generally too much power over citizens. Cutting Leviathan down to size is the long-term work of conservatism. But Congress can act right now to stop federal abuses.
So we’re glad to see that even as they continue their investigation, House Republicans are planning a raft of legislation to rein in federal agencies and provide Americans with concrete protections against abuse.
Each year federal agencies make almost 1 million adjudications about citizens’ compliance with their regulations, and the defendants aren’t guaranteed the rights they have in a court of law. The Citizen Empowerment Act would help citizens protect their rights in such cases, by allowing them, for instance, to record their interactions with federal bureaucrats and notifying them of that right. A new Taxpayer Bill of Rights would establish certain protections for taxpayers, including rights to privacy and accountability, and task the IRS commissioner with ensuring they are respected.
Other pieces of legislation would ensure that bureaucrats suspected of violating those rights would meet with consequences — no more paid vacation for bureaucrats being investigated for abuse of power, to start. The Government Employee Accountability Act would allow the federal government to place employees under investigation for serious offenses on unpaid leave, and another piece of legislation would make political interference at the IRS a firing offense.
As part of this push, Republicans are also highlighting earlier proposals to make government accountable. The REINS Act would require congressional approval for any new federal regulation with a cost over $100 million, taking the power to make economically significant policy away from executive bureaucrats and placing it back in the hands of the legislature.
Article Continues At National Review On Line:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354369/stopping-government-ab...
Stopping Government Abuse
Congress should act now to curb the power that the federal government has over citizens.
We still have not gotten to the bottom of the IRS scandal, as even White House press secretary Jay Carney admitted on Wednesday. House Republicans must continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and overcome the obstruction of House Democrats. What we already know about the scandal, though, is that we have given the IRS and the federal government generally too much power over citizens. Cutting Leviathan down to size is the long-term work of conservatism. But Congress can act right now to stop federal abuses.
So we’re glad to see that even as they continue their investigation, House Republicans are planning a raft of legislation to rein in federal agencies and provide Americans with concrete protections against abuse.
Each year federal agencies make almost 1 million adjudications about citizens’ compliance with their regulations, and the defendants aren’t guaranteed the rights they have in a court of law. The Citizen Empowerment Act would help citizens protect their rights in such cases, by allowing them, for instance, to record their interactions with federal bureaucrats and notifying them of that right. A new Taxpayer Bill of Rights would establish certain protections for taxpayers, including rights to privacy and accountability, and task the IRS commissioner with ensuring they are respected.
Other pieces of legislation would ensure that bureaucrats suspected of violating those rights would meet with consequences — no more paid vacation for bureaucrats being investigated for abuse of power, to start. The Government Employee Accountability Act would allow the federal government to place employees under investigation for serious offenses on unpaid leave, and another piece of legislation would make political interference at the IRS a firing offense.
As part of this push, Republicans are also highlighting earlier proposals to make government accountable. The REINS Act would require congressional approval for any new federal regulation with a cost over $100 million, taking the power to make economically significant policy away from executive bureaucrats and placing it back in the hands of the legislature.
Article Continues At National Review On Line:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354369/stopping-government-ab...
Below is a series of articles about how important the States are in managing Big Government.
All Politics Are Not National, States Are Powerful
James Madison, a strong federal government advocate in 1787, couldn't have been any clearer in articulating the significant powers delegated to the states under the new Constitution. In Federalist 45, he wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
For a number of good reasons (from extending civil liberties to establishing civil rights to ensuring food safety and basic work conditions), the federal government's powers have grown substantially over the past 225 years. It's also fair to say that the federal government is unlikely to ever seriously relinquish these expanded powers to the states. Whether we live in Washington State or the state of George Washington's home (Virginia), we all live nationally.
The vast majority of the laws under which each of us abide are state laws, not federal laws.
Still, we forget the nature of our government when we make all politics national. No one -- not even the inhabitants of the District of Columbia or the military personnel stationed overseas -- lives exclusively as a national resident.
People live in states. People work in states. People vote in states. People own property in states. People get married and raise families in states. In sum, the vast majority of the laws under which each of us abide are state laws, not federal laws. Unsurprisingly then, as James Madison explained in Federalist 46, "the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States."
So while many liberals aren't pleased with the new abortion law passed in Texas, it's also true that many conservatives are displeased with Colorado's new gun-control laws. But again, as James Madison reminds, "Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."
Both according to our Constitution and in common practice, state politics are more present in and more important to the daily lives of Americans.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-matter-america-is-a-federal-republic
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
For a number of good reasons (from extending civil liberties to establishing civil rights to ensuring food safety and basic work conditions), the federal government's powers have grown substantially over the past 225 years. It's also fair to say that the federal government is unlikely to ever seriously relinquish these expanded powers to the states. Whether we live in Washington State or the state of George Washington's home (Virginia), we all live nationally.
The vast majority of the laws under which each of us abide are state laws, not federal laws.
Still, we forget the nature of our government when we make all politics national. No one -- not even the inhabitants of the District of Columbia or the military personnel stationed overseas -- lives exclusively as a national resident.
People live in states. People work in states. People vote in states. People own property in states. People get married and raise families in states. In sum, the vast majority of the laws under which each of us abide are state laws, not federal laws. Unsurprisingly then, as James Madison explained in Federalist 46, "the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States."
So while many liberals aren't pleased with the new abortion law passed in Texas, it's also true that many conservatives are displeased with Colorado's new gun-control laws. But again, as James Madison reminds, "Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."
Both according to our Constitution and in common practice, state politics are more present in and more important to the daily lives of Americans.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-matter-america-is-a-federal-republic
States Need to Keep Federal Power From Overstepping
As the old saying goes, all politics are local. State and federal governments affect our daily lives in numerous ways. Yet, in our federal system, there is supposed to be a balance between federal and state power. As James Madison envisioned it in Federalist No. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.”
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has broad authority in specific enumerated areas, but its power is not unlimited. State government plays a critical role in all those areas that are not left exclusively to the federal government. As a result, state politics are extraordinarily important because states are charged with protecting the welfare, safety and health of their citizens (which is one reason why roughly 95 percent of criminal court cases are handled in state courts).
At least since the New Deal, however, the balance of power has shifted decisively in favor of federal politics. The expansion of administrative agencies and other federal programs have encroached on state sovereignty, often with little or no resistance from the states themselves.
Fortunately, governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge overstepping by the federal government.
But the winds of change are blowing in states across the country. Governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge what they view as the federal government’s overstepping its constitutionally prescribed role. In 2010, more than 20 states filed suit against the federal government claiming that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exceeded Congress’s power. In addition, state attorneys general have successfully challenged various actions by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, using state politics to protect the vertical separation of powers.
Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions provide a glimmer of hope to those championing state sovereignty. In National Federation of Independent Business (N.F.I.B.) v. Sebelius, a majority of the court determined that the individual mandate under the health care act exceeded Congress’s commerce clause power. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court held that Congress unconstitutionally infringed on state sovereignty by using an outdated formula under the Voting Rights Act to decide which states had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In United States v. Windsor, the court emphasized that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional in part because the regulation of domestic relations has always been left to the exclusive province of the states.
Yet even in these cases, federal supremacy lurks in the background, ready to limit the reach of state political power. According to the court, Congress had ample taxing power to enact the individual mandate; Congress can propose a new formula under Section Four of the Voting Rights Act; and state control over domestic relations remains subject to the federal Constitution.
As evidenced by the court’s 5-4 decisions in N.F.I.B., Shelby County and Windsor, the Supreme Court has been the last arbiter of the balance between state and federal power, and that balance is dictated by the narrowest of margins. Consequently, federal politics, including the next Supreme Court appointment, may determine the scope of state sovereignty for years to come.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-need-more-control-over-the-federal-government
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has broad authority in specific enumerated areas, but its power is not unlimited. State government plays a critical role in all those areas that are not left exclusively to the federal government. As a result, state politics are extraordinarily important because states are charged with protecting the welfare, safety and health of their citizens (which is one reason why roughly 95 percent of criminal court cases are handled in state courts).
At least since the New Deal, however, the balance of power has shifted decisively in favor of federal politics. The expansion of administrative agencies and other federal programs have encroached on state sovereignty, often with little or no resistance from the states themselves.
Fortunately, governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge overstepping by the federal government.
But the winds of change are blowing in states across the country. Governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge what they view as the federal government’s overstepping its constitutionally prescribed role. In 2010, more than 20 states filed suit against the federal government claiming that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exceeded Congress’s power. In addition, state attorneys general have successfully challenged various actions by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, using state politics to protect the vertical separation of powers.
Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions provide a glimmer of hope to those championing state sovereignty. In National Federation of Independent Business (N.F.I.B.) v. Sebelius, a majority of the court determined that the individual mandate under the health care act exceeded Congress’s commerce clause power. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court held that Congress unconstitutionally infringed on state sovereignty by using an outdated formula under the Voting Rights Act to decide which states had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In United States v. Windsor, the court emphasized that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional in part because the regulation of domestic relations has always been left to the exclusive province of the states.
Yet even in these cases, federal supremacy lurks in the background, ready to limit the reach of state political power. According to the court, Congress had ample taxing power to enact the individual mandate; Congress can propose a new formula under Section Four of the Voting Rights Act; and state control over domestic relations remains subject to the federal Constitution.
As evidenced by the court’s 5-4 decisions in N.F.I.B., Shelby County and Windsor, the Supreme Court has been the last arbiter of the balance between state and federal power, and that balance is dictated by the narrowest of margins. Consequently, federal politics, including the next Supreme Court appointment, may determine the scope of state sovereignty for years to come.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-need-more-control-over-the-federal-government
States Get Things Done, Affecting National Policy
When people debate whether state politics or national politics are more important, they typically fall into camps. The nationalists argue that we are one people, and that national politics are all that should matter. The federalist camp argues that state officials are closer to the people and that state governance gives us the ability to live in a place where the laws match our own preferences (be it Texas or Portlandia).
The federalist camp has the advantage right now of advocating for the one form of politics that is actually active. Political polarization has paralyzed the national government, but it has catalyzed state policy making.
When policy is implemented, rather than just debated, Congress is forced to take action.
But one segment of government is not more important than the other. National politics fuels state politics, and state politics helps ensure that national politics function properly. The question isn’t which matters more; the question is when and how each matters in the first place.
Those offering starry-eyed odes to the value of local participation underestimate how closely state politics are tied to national politics. As the important work of David Schleicher and others has shown, elections for state offices are as much referendums on the national politics as they are about anything else. Most people don’t pay much attention to state politics. When they vote for a state legislator, they are voting based on something they know about: national politics. That’s why we see a remarkably close connection between votes in most state races and votes in national ones. The close ties between state and federal parties can lead to all kinds of problems by keeping poor-performing state and local officials from getting voted out of office. But oddly enough, the connection can mitigate what ails national politics.
National politics are locked up. Our legislative process has too many obstacles when politics are highly polarized. As a result, issues that matter quite a bit to the American people – gay rights, abortion, immigration, guns -- don’t get any traction in Congress.
Ambitious members of both parties may not be able to get anything passed in Washington, but they can in the states. That means state officials can challenge national policy – or protest its absence – by passing laws at home. By making policy rather than merely debating it, groups on both sides of the aisle can seize the national agenda and shift the burden of inertia in Congress. Usually all opponents of a policy need to do is kill the bill. When a state passes the policy, however, that strategy doesn’t work anymore. Opponents and proponents, then, suddenly agree on one thing – Congress should do something – and they will unite in pushing Congress to act. When national politics are the problem, then, state politics can be the solution.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-get-things-done-affecting-national-policy
The federalist camp has the advantage right now of advocating for the one form of politics that is actually active. Political polarization has paralyzed the national government, but it has catalyzed state policy making.
When policy is implemented, rather than just debated, Congress is forced to take action.
But one segment of government is not more important than the other. National politics fuels state politics, and state politics helps ensure that national politics function properly. The question isn’t which matters more; the question is when and how each matters in the first place.
Those offering starry-eyed odes to the value of local participation underestimate how closely state politics are tied to national politics. As the important work of David Schleicher and others has shown, elections for state offices are as much referendums on the national politics as they are about anything else. Most people don’t pay much attention to state politics. When they vote for a state legislator, they are voting based on something they know about: national politics. That’s why we see a remarkably close connection between votes in most state races and votes in national ones. The close ties between state and federal parties can lead to all kinds of problems by keeping poor-performing state and local officials from getting voted out of office. But oddly enough, the connection can mitigate what ails national politics.
National politics are locked up. Our legislative process has too many obstacles when politics are highly polarized. As a result, issues that matter quite a bit to the American people – gay rights, abortion, immigration, guns -- don’t get any traction in Congress.
Ambitious members of both parties may not be able to get anything passed in Washington, but they can in the states. That means state officials can challenge national policy – or protest its absence – by passing laws at home. By making policy rather than merely debating it, groups on both sides of the aisle can seize the national agenda and shift the burden of inertia in Congress. Usually all opponents of a policy need to do is kill the bill. When a state passes the policy, however, that strategy doesn’t work anymore. Opponents and proponents, then, suddenly agree on one thing – Congress should do something – and they will unite in pushing Congress to act. When national politics are the problem, then, state politics can be the solution.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-get-things-done-affecting-national-policy
The Federal Government Holds the Power
Any dispute about which is more powerful -- the federal government or the states -- was settled in 1789 when the Constitution granted the federal government the right to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, raise an army and adjudicate legal disputes between states. It’s not called the “Supreme Court” for nothing.
In 1789 the Constitution granted the federal government the right to collect taxes and raise an army. Since then its authority has trumped state politics.
States, or alliances of states, have attempted to nullify federal power, but the federal government has eventually prevailed, although in the case of Southern slavery, it took a four-year war for the federal government to do so. Beyond that, states have served as pockets of resistance or innovation, attempting to weaken federal laws, or to advance new legislation that the federal government is not yet ready to consider.
On the left, states during the Progressive Era introduced economic legislation that the New Deal later adopted for the nation. That led Louis Brandeis to dub them “laboratories of democracy.” Recently, states have pioneered universal health insurance and climate change regulation. On the right, Republican governors are currently attempting to reduce the scope of the Affordable Care Act and to impose restrictions on abortion that undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.
The question about these efforts, like those from the left during the Progressive Era efforts, is whether they can be expanded nationally. That will depend on whether the opponents of the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, or older New Deal reforms can elect a president and a majority in Congress that shares their point of view. Otherwise, like the state attempts to defy Brown v. Board of Education, these efforts will become the subject of still another “lost cause.”
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/federal-government-is-more-powerful-than-state-government
In 1789 the Constitution granted the federal government the right to collect taxes and raise an army. Since then its authority has trumped state politics.
States, or alliances of states, have attempted to nullify federal power, but the federal government has eventually prevailed, although in the case of Southern slavery, it took a four-year war for the federal government to do so. Beyond that, states have served as pockets of resistance or innovation, attempting to weaken federal laws, or to advance new legislation that the federal government is not yet ready to consider.
On the left, states during the Progressive Era introduced economic legislation that the New Deal later adopted for the nation. That led Louis Brandeis to dub them “laboratories of democracy.” Recently, states have pioneered universal health insurance and climate change regulation. On the right, Republican governors are currently attempting to reduce the scope of the Affordable Care Act and to impose restrictions on abortion that undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.
The question about these efforts, like those from the left during the Progressive Era efforts, is whether they can be expanded nationally. That will depend on whether the opponents of the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, or older New Deal reforms can elect a president and a majority in Congress that shares their point of view. Otherwise, like the state attempts to defy Brown v. Board of Education, these efforts will become the subject of still another “lost cause.”
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/federal-government-is-more-powerful-than-state-government
Congress Isn't What It Used to Be
The definitive source for data on our nation’s legislative branch, Vital Statistics on Congress, has been released online for the first time ever.
More than three decades ago, Brookings Senior Fellow Tom Mann and I created Vital Statistics on Congress, the definitive source for data on the nation’s legislative body. In the years since that first publication, we have released a new version for each election cycle with the most up-to-date information available on Congress. In 1982, Michael Malbin joined us to provide information biennially on campaign finance. And AEI’s Andrew Rugg updated information for the new edition and worked diligently with the folks at Brookings to help us make the transition to an online publication.
To commemorate our latest edition of Vital Stats — and our first-ever online-only free version— here are some quick facts to show how Congress has evolved over the years:
1: Just as in the country as a whole, the demographics of Congress are changing. Congress continues to be a majority white male institution, but the 113th Congress is the most diverse in American history in terms of both race and gender, including record numbers of women (96), African Americans (42), and Hispanics (31). When we published the first edition ofVital Stats in 1980, there were only 18 women, 15 African Americans, and 6 Hispanics in both the House and Senate combined.
The 113th Congress is the most diverse in American history in terms of both race and gender, including record numbers of women, African Americans, and Hispanics.
2: Military service was once a very common experience for members of Congress, but it’s far more the exception than the rule these days. From the end of World War II until the close of the Gulf War, a majority of members in the House and Senate had served in the military. Today, barely a fifth can count themselves veterans. The 83rd Congress (1953-55) had 309 veterans among its ranks. The current Congress has just 109. The implications of this change — from congressional attitudes toward war, to the military, and to American internationalism — are profound, as is the sense of commitment to a team and a hierarchy of leadership.
3: The financial barriers to mounting a successful run for either house of Congress continue to rise. Our Vital Stats coauthor Michael Malbin, the executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI), has compiled a fascinating series on campaign contributions and expenditures in congressional elections. In 2012, it cost the average House candidate nearly $1.6 million to capture his or her seat. Successful Senate candidates spent on average around $10 million. Ten years prior, in 2002, the average successful House run cost $1.2 million, while a successful Senate run cost $4.8 million. For further information and data about campaign finance in Congress, see CFI’s invaluable work in Chapter 3 of Vital Stats.
4: The most striking feature of the contemporary Congress is extreme partisan polarization, which has reached a level not seen in well over a century, and support for the president’s position on roll call votes by members of the opposition party has virtually disappeared. Party unity votes (the percentage of all recorded votes on which a majority of voting Democrats opposed a majority of voting Republicans) in the House, for example, have skyrocketed over the past fifteen years. In 2000, the percentage of votes in which majorities of the parties opposed one another was 42.2 percent. By 2006, this figure had gone up to 54.5 percent, and in 2012, it was a remarkable 72.8 percent, meaning that major swaths of the parties were voting against their colleagues on the other side of the aisle nearly three-quarters of the time, approaching parliamentary numbers.
The most striking feature of the contemporary Congress is extreme partisan polarization, which has reached a level not seen in well over a century.
Polarization has also reduced the regular order by which both the House and Senate typically operate. This can be seen most vividly in the dramatic increase in Senate filibusters in recent years. The 101st Congress (1989-91) saw only 13 filibusters; by the 110th Congress (2007-2009, that number was up to 51. Filibusters that were once rare and limited to major national issues have become routine and are now applied to all kinds of bills and nominees. Needless to say, more filibusters mean that less congressional business is getting done, which is a major component of congressional dysfunction.
5: Change in Congress is driven in important ways by population growth and migration trends, shifting congressional power among regions and states, and creating new opportunities and obstacles for the two parties. The regions which have seen the largest growth in number of congressional seats over the past hundred years are the South and West. The southern states, which had 104 congressional seats in 1910, now have 138 after the 2010 reapportionment. The Pacific Coast states have gone from just 19 seats in 1910 to 71 as of 2010. While these regions have seen a rise in their congressional influence, the mid-Atlantic region’s influence is on the decline. Whereas the mid-Atlantic states had 92 seats in 1910, they now have only 58.
This information is just a small portion of what’s contained in our latest edition of Vital Statistics on Congress. To learn more and download the data for your own use, please click here.
Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Jennifer Marsico is a senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute.
FURTHER READING: Ornstein also writes “Immigration Bill or Not, Congress is Still Tribal” and “Congress has Changed, Not for the Better, and Now It Needs Changing.” Marsico also writes "Americans Still Crave Bipartisanship.” Arnold Kling looks at “Tribal Politics in the 21st Century,” Steven F. Hayward says “Save the Filibster!” and Howard Darmstadter asks “Who Should Know about Your Political Contributions?” Also view AEI's July Political Report.
http://american.com/archive/2013/july/congress-isnt-what-it-used-to-be
More than three decades ago, Brookings Senior Fellow Tom Mann and I created Vital Statistics on Congress, the definitive source for data on the nation’s legislative body. In the years since that first publication, we have released a new version for each election cycle with the most up-to-date information available on Congress. In 1982, Michael Malbin joined us to provide information biennially on campaign finance. And AEI’s Andrew Rugg updated information for the new edition and worked diligently with the folks at Brookings to help us make the transition to an online publication.
To commemorate our latest edition of Vital Stats — and our first-ever online-only free version— here are some quick facts to show how Congress has evolved over the years:
1: Just as in the country as a whole, the demographics of Congress are changing. Congress continues to be a majority white male institution, but the 113th Congress is the most diverse in American history in terms of both race and gender, including record numbers of women (96), African Americans (42), and Hispanics (31). When we published the first edition ofVital Stats in 1980, there were only 18 women, 15 African Americans, and 6 Hispanics in both the House and Senate combined.
The 113th Congress is the most diverse in American history in terms of both race and gender, including record numbers of women, African Americans, and Hispanics.
2: Military service was once a very common experience for members of Congress, but it’s far more the exception than the rule these days. From the end of World War II until the close of the Gulf War, a majority of members in the House and Senate had served in the military. Today, barely a fifth can count themselves veterans. The 83rd Congress (1953-55) had 309 veterans among its ranks. The current Congress has just 109. The implications of this change — from congressional attitudes toward war, to the military, and to American internationalism — are profound, as is the sense of commitment to a team and a hierarchy of leadership.
3: The financial barriers to mounting a successful run for either house of Congress continue to rise. Our Vital Stats coauthor Michael Malbin, the executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI), has compiled a fascinating series on campaign contributions and expenditures in congressional elections. In 2012, it cost the average House candidate nearly $1.6 million to capture his or her seat. Successful Senate candidates spent on average around $10 million. Ten years prior, in 2002, the average successful House run cost $1.2 million, while a successful Senate run cost $4.8 million. For further information and data about campaign finance in Congress, see CFI’s invaluable work in Chapter 3 of Vital Stats.
4: The most striking feature of the contemporary Congress is extreme partisan polarization, which has reached a level not seen in well over a century, and support for the president’s position on roll call votes by members of the opposition party has virtually disappeared. Party unity votes (the percentage of all recorded votes on which a majority of voting Democrats opposed a majority of voting Republicans) in the House, for example, have skyrocketed over the past fifteen years. In 2000, the percentage of votes in which majorities of the parties opposed one another was 42.2 percent. By 2006, this figure had gone up to 54.5 percent, and in 2012, it was a remarkable 72.8 percent, meaning that major swaths of the parties were voting against their colleagues on the other side of the aisle nearly three-quarters of the time, approaching parliamentary numbers.
The most striking feature of the contemporary Congress is extreme partisan polarization, which has reached a level not seen in well over a century.
Polarization has also reduced the regular order by which both the House and Senate typically operate. This can be seen most vividly in the dramatic increase in Senate filibusters in recent years. The 101st Congress (1989-91) saw only 13 filibusters; by the 110th Congress (2007-2009, that number was up to 51. Filibusters that were once rare and limited to major national issues have become routine and are now applied to all kinds of bills and nominees. Needless to say, more filibusters mean that less congressional business is getting done, which is a major component of congressional dysfunction.
5: Change in Congress is driven in important ways by population growth and migration trends, shifting congressional power among regions and states, and creating new opportunities and obstacles for the two parties. The regions which have seen the largest growth in number of congressional seats over the past hundred years are the South and West. The southern states, which had 104 congressional seats in 1910, now have 138 after the 2010 reapportionment. The Pacific Coast states have gone from just 19 seats in 1910 to 71 as of 2010. While these regions have seen a rise in their congressional influence, the mid-Atlantic region’s influence is on the decline. Whereas the mid-Atlantic states had 92 seats in 1910, they now have only 58.
This information is just a small portion of what’s contained in our latest edition of Vital Statistics on Congress. To learn more and download the data for your own use, please click here.
Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Jennifer Marsico is a senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute.
FURTHER READING: Ornstein also writes “Immigration Bill or Not, Congress is Still Tribal” and “Congress has Changed, Not for the Better, and Now It Needs Changing.” Marsico also writes "Americans Still Crave Bipartisanship.” Arnold Kling looks at “Tribal Politics in the 21st Century,” Steven F. Hayward says “Save the Filibster!” and Howard Darmstadter asks “Who Should Know about Your Political Contributions?” Also view AEI's July Political Report.
http://american.com/archive/2013/july/congress-isnt-what-it-used-to-be
The NSA Controversy, the Founding Fathers, and the Fourth Amendment
The-NSA-Controversy-and-the-Founding-Fathers
Fears about the pervasive reach of our intelligence services soared to unprecedented levels with the recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, which gobbles up citizens’ phone and internet records in hopes of finding terrorists. In spite of earlier direct denials by officials such as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we now know that intelligence agents have warrantless access to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans.
How much did the Founding Fathers worry about what they called “general warrants,” or broad-based searches not prompted by reasonable evidence of criminal activity? Admittedly, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have fathomed the technological advances behind cell phones and the internet that have presented the opportunity for such massive technological snooping. Nor could they have envisioned terrorists’ capabilities of wreaking massive death and destruction with weapons ranging from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”
When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”
Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.
Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.
Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?
Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author ofPatrick Henry: First Among Patriots.
Fears about the pervasive reach of our intelligence services soared to unprecedented levels with the recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, which gobbles up citizens’ phone and internet records in hopes of finding terrorists. In spite of earlier direct denials by officials such as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we now know that intelligence agents have warrantless access to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans.
How much did the Founding Fathers worry about what they called “general warrants,” or broad-based searches not prompted by reasonable evidence of criminal activity? Admittedly, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have fathomed the technological advances behind cell phones and the internet that have presented the opportunity for such massive technological snooping. Nor could they have envisioned terrorists’ capabilities of wreaking massive death and destruction with weapons ranging from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”
When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”
Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.
Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.
Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?
Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author ofPatrick Henry: First Among Patriots.
The Ethics of Sacrifice, the Politics of Slavery
By Boyd Richard Boyd
Bad political ideas come from bad ethical ideas, which are originally spread by the words of bad philosophers. Progressives and their Utopian counterparts throughout history have pushed a corrupt and inverted morality on the world, causing man to act as his own destroyer.
It is from an individual's ethics that his politics are formed. Our government is flush with officials, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, who hold a Progressive political ideology. The end result of the Progressive political ideology is collectivism and statism. Not coincidentally these results are identical to those garnered from other specialized ideologies like Communism, Fabianism, socialism, National Socialism (Nazism), fascism, Globalism, corporatism, cronyism, Pan-Islam, etc. And they all have a common ethics as their root.
Each ideology is convinced the government in whatever form, can make a perfect society in its own image by controlling every aspect of its citizens' lives; groups of men are cattle or chattel to be herded, shaped or re-educated. For the Progressives to progress to their Utopian end, they will do anything necessary. The ends always justify the means to Progressives and the ends are always a totalitarian state.
Why didn't the average German rise up against the Nazis or the average Russian against the Soviets? Why don't the Chinese rise up now? Why do so many people in America seem so nonchalant about liberty and the rights of the individual? Why do the politicians who aren't Progressive keep silent?
Progressives gain emotional control and the sanction of their victims by trapping them morally based on the ethical principle which will not only best suit Progressive needs (you give, they take), but one the whole world has come to accept -- altruism. Altruism is sacrificing one's self for others, as considered by French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the man who coined the word and also invented the word "sociology."
By altruism, Comte did not mean being benevolent, charitable, kind, or generous. None of these things need be a sacrifice. Altruism, by Comte's definition, is the duty of the individual to serve the will of others, not oneself, and place others' interests above one's own. Altruism as Comte meant it was really sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Altruism means virgins sacrificed to volcanoes and goats sacrificed to Drippy the Rain God.
A sacrifice is getting rid of something valuable for something worthless or detrimental. If you and your spouse start a college fund for Junior instead of going on a cruise, it is not a sacrifice unless you would actually value a trip to Barbados over Junior going to med school. If you value your neighbor and help them with groceries instead of dining at a 4-star restaurant, it is not a sacrifice unless you value a 12-course meal over your neighbors eating for the week.
Progressives see themselves as more "moral" than the average slob. So if Joe Pick-up Truck isn't willing to follow the ethical code everyone else has accepted and altruistically live and work for the benefit of others, then the Progressives will make sure he is punished or silenced. The Progressives, too, have accepted this sacrificial, altruistic moral code, and know sacrifices don't collect themselves, so they will decide who sacrifices what and collect how much is desired.
To do so, Progressives, et al, must enslave the rest of us politically. By defending altruism ethically, Comte necessarily opposed the idea of individual rights politically.
Comte wrote:
Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all. Its constant social viewpoint cannot include any notion of rights, for such notion always rests on individuality. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. These obligations then increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service... Any human right is therefore as absurd as immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely as related only to the preliminary regime and totally inconsistent with the final state where there are only duties based on functions.
Also:
Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?
And:
The scientific spirit forbids us to regard society as composed of individuals.
By the way, the motto of Comte's philosophy was: "Love as a principle and order as the basis; Progress as the goal." I would say he was a Progressive. And it is his ethics of altruism -- self-sacrifice -- the Progressives and their cohorts use as a scythe to reap us all.
It is the ethics of sacrifice which lead to the politics of slavery. It can take no other course and has been this way throughout history -- from the blood sacrifices of the Mayans, to the Inquisition of Spain, to the gas chambers of the National Socialists, to the starving millions of the Communists, to the Dhimmitude, slavery and abuse wherever Pan-Islamists can carve it out. The trend will continue until people have the ammunition to defend their individual rights -- their lives, liberty, property, and wealth -- on a moral basis.
The modern-day American ethos of altruism is not the ethos of the Founding Fathers. Their ethics were based on rational self-interest, of man as a sovereign individual capable of making his own choices and governing his own actions, and therefore their politics were of liberty and capitalism. For man to be free to choose and act he must be free from other men or groups of men to do so. It is the ethics of rational self-interest, the ethics of individualism, which lead to the politics of liberty.
The concept of the American form of government was to protect the individual rights of its citizens, especially against the actions of people who agree with Comte. But because people consider self-sacrifice moral, they never speak about defending their individual rights. Most Americans now believe rational self-interest is immoral. People have accepted an unearned guilt in their ethical code and consider being in bondage as justified -- so they will accept ever more ridicule and damnation for being selfish, pay more taxes and suffer more regulations and let the government intrude farther and farther into their lives. Then Progressives will tell us the reason everything is still rotten is because of those selfish obstructionists in society who aren't willing to sacrifice themselves quickly enough.
Always keep in mind what Progressives are "progressing" away from: the ideals and principles of America, the Constitution, the Republic, the rule of law, hands-off capitalism; away from the recognition of individual rights and of property rights; away from personal responsibility and self reliance; away from the idea that man is born free and the American government was created as his servant.
Progressives are gleefully "progressing" towards tyranny and totalitarianism, towards sacrifices and slaves, towards control of your life and your mind, with their power lust leading them all the way. And to globally rule over collective man in shackles is their goal.
The pimps of the ethics of sacrifice should be regarded as enslavers of men in spirit and exposed for what they are really saying. Conversely, the preachers of the ethics of individualism should be regarded as liberators of man in spirit and be commended for what they are really saying.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_ethics_of_sacrifice_the_politics_of_slavery.html
Bad political ideas come from bad ethical ideas, which are originally spread by the words of bad philosophers. Progressives and their Utopian counterparts throughout history have pushed a corrupt and inverted morality on the world, causing man to act as his own destroyer.
It is from an individual's ethics that his politics are formed. Our government is flush with officials, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, who hold a Progressive political ideology. The end result of the Progressive political ideology is collectivism and statism. Not coincidentally these results are identical to those garnered from other specialized ideologies like Communism, Fabianism, socialism, National Socialism (Nazism), fascism, Globalism, corporatism, cronyism, Pan-Islam, etc. And they all have a common ethics as their root.
Each ideology is convinced the government in whatever form, can make a perfect society in its own image by controlling every aspect of its citizens' lives; groups of men are cattle or chattel to be herded, shaped or re-educated. For the Progressives to progress to their Utopian end, they will do anything necessary. The ends always justify the means to Progressives and the ends are always a totalitarian state.
Why didn't the average German rise up against the Nazis or the average Russian against the Soviets? Why don't the Chinese rise up now? Why do so many people in America seem so nonchalant about liberty and the rights of the individual? Why do the politicians who aren't Progressive keep silent?
Progressives gain emotional control and the sanction of their victims by trapping them morally based on the ethical principle which will not only best suit Progressive needs (you give, they take), but one the whole world has come to accept -- altruism. Altruism is sacrificing one's self for others, as considered by French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the man who coined the word and also invented the word "sociology."
By altruism, Comte did not mean being benevolent, charitable, kind, or generous. None of these things need be a sacrifice. Altruism, by Comte's definition, is the duty of the individual to serve the will of others, not oneself, and place others' interests above one's own. Altruism as Comte meant it was really sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Altruism means virgins sacrificed to volcanoes and goats sacrificed to Drippy the Rain God.
A sacrifice is getting rid of something valuable for something worthless or detrimental. If you and your spouse start a college fund for Junior instead of going on a cruise, it is not a sacrifice unless you would actually value a trip to Barbados over Junior going to med school. If you value your neighbor and help them with groceries instead of dining at a 4-star restaurant, it is not a sacrifice unless you value a 12-course meal over your neighbors eating for the week.
Progressives see themselves as more "moral" than the average slob. So if Joe Pick-up Truck isn't willing to follow the ethical code everyone else has accepted and altruistically live and work for the benefit of others, then the Progressives will make sure he is punished or silenced. The Progressives, too, have accepted this sacrificial, altruistic moral code, and know sacrifices don't collect themselves, so they will decide who sacrifices what and collect how much is desired.
To do so, Progressives, et al, must enslave the rest of us politically. By defending altruism ethically, Comte necessarily opposed the idea of individual rights politically.
Comte wrote:
Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all. Its constant social viewpoint cannot include any notion of rights, for such notion always rests on individuality. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. These obligations then increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service... Any human right is therefore as absurd as immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely as related only to the preliminary regime and totally inconsistent with the final state where there are only duties based on functions.
Also:
Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?
And:
The scientific spirit forbids us to regard society as composed of individuals.
By the way, the motto of Comte's philosophy was: "Love as a principle and order as the basis; Progress as the goal." I would say he was a Progressive. And it is his ethics of altruism -- self-sacrifice -- the Progressives and their cohorts use as a scythe to reap us all.
It is the ethics of sacrifice which lead to the politics of slavery. It can take no other course and has been this way throughout history -- from the blood sacrifices of the Mayans, to the Inquisition of Spain, to the gas chambers of the National Socialists, to the starving millions of the Communists, to the Dhimmitude, slavery and abuse wherever Pan-Islamists can carve it out. The trend will continue until people have the ammunition to defend their individual rights -- their lives, liberty, property, and wealth -- on a moral basis.
The modern-day American ethos of altruism is not the ethos of the Founding Fathers. Their ethics were based on rational self-interest, of man as a sovereign individual capable of making his own choices and governing his own actions, and therefore their politics were of liberty and capitalism. For man to be free to choose and act he must be free from other men or groups of men to do so. It is the ethics of rational self-interest, the ethics of individualism, which lead to the politics of liberty.
The concept of the American form of government was to protect the individual rights of its citizens, especially against the actions of people who agree with Comte. But because people consider self-sacrifice moral, they never speak about defending their individual rights. Most Americans now believe rational self-interest is immoral. People have accepted an unearned guilt in their ethical code and consider being in bondage as justified -- so they will accept ever more ridicule and damnation for being selfish, pay more taxes and suffer more regulations and let the government intrude farther and farther into their lives. Then Progressives will tell us the reason everything is still rotten is because of those selfish obstructionists in society who aren't willing to sacrifice themselves quickly enough.
Always keep in mind what Progressives are "progressing" away from: the ideals and principles of America, the Constitution, the Republic, the rule of law, hands-off capitalism; away from the recognition of individual rights and of property rights; away from personal responsibility and self reliance; away from the idea that man is born free and the American government was created as his servant.
Progressives are gleefully "progressing" towards tyranny and totalitarianism, towards sacrifices and slaves, towards control of your life and your mind, with their power lust leading them all the way. And to globally rule over collective man in shackles is their goal.
The pimps of the ethics of sacrifice should be regarded as enslavers of men in spirit and exposed for what they are really saying. Conversely, the preachers of the ethics of individualism should be regarded as liberators of man in spirit and be commended for what they are really saying.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_ethics_of_sacrifice_the_politics_of_slavery.html
Are the States Out of Date?
We must face the fact the dam has broken and the foxes are guarding the hen house. The ship has sailed and the fix is in.
The people of the founding generation did not think of Americans as Americans. They did not see them as one people but instead as citizens of the various states. Even as late as the Civil War, people such as Robert E. Lee, who disagreed with secession and wanted a united United States, left because his State seceded and not because he suddenly wanted Virginia to be another country. Another example of the feelings of many in the founding generation was the fact that the term “We the People of the United States” that opens the preamble to the Constitution caused great controversy during the ratification debates. It was pointed out as a blatant attempt to make the States irrelevant.
The Constitution was meant to improve the federation of the various States as created under the Articles of Confederation. It was not meant to create anything new. This was stressed over and over by the supporters of the Constitution in the ratification debates. The Framers voted by State, and, though some of the Framers wouldn’t sign the completed document, since it was adopted by all the States it was called unanimous. The ratification votes of the various conventions voted by state not as individuals. As provided in the original document the members of the Senate were not elected by the people at large. They were instead selected by the State legislatures. The house was designed to represent the people, and the Senate was designed to represent the States.
The Constitution never would have been ratified without this provision designed to protect the States from losing their integrity as sovereign republics which had voluntarily joined together. This was essential and this was generally understood.
So when was our social contract revised? How can a contract be unilaterally revised?
When did we agree to surrender our liberty in exchange for security? When did we agree to move from a voluntary federal republic to a centrally-planned democracy? When did our freedom from warrantless searches morph into 360° surveillance? When and how were the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights turned inside out and upside down?
The scariest thing I see about all this as I travel around the country is not that our totalitarian wanabes will use any excuse and any subterfuge to undermine limited government for the benefit of their power and their crony capitalist’s profit. No, that doesn’t scare me or surprise me at all. What catches my attention is that as I speak to more and more people about this creeping corporatism the majority of them say things like, “I’m glad the government is watching out for terrorists” or “If you’re not saying or doing anything wrong why should you care if the government listens in?”
Not only have Americans been dumbed down to the point where the majority of college freshmen need remedial studies, but these descendants of the pioneers have lost sight of the American Dream. Asked “What is the American dream?” most citizens today will recite the pabulum spooned out by the Federal Reserve Bubble Machine, the political hacks who gave them power, and the Wall Street Casino that profits by the game: “The American Dream is to own your own Home.”
That is not the American Dream! The American dream is limited government, personal liberty, and economic opportunity.
At what point do unilateral changes to a contract render it null and void?
I have long said, it will still be called the United States of America. The stars and stripes will still wave, there will still be elections, and we will still hear that this is the freest most prosperous nation on earth as our freedom slips away and our opportunities shrink.
During the ratification debates it became clear that the Constitution would not be ratified unless there was a promise that the first order of business for the new government was going to be to amend the document to state some things that a majority of people thought were missing. The promise was made and the first ten amendments were added. Today we call this our Bill of Rights. While some people can recite all of them and many more can recite a few almost every American knows they exist. The Bill of Rights has a treasured place in the American heart.
Few if any know what was said in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which is neither mentioned nor studied today. This sets out their purpose and is enlightening as a starting off point for understanding what they are and what we are losing.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution” (emphasis added). The Bill of Rights was added in order to prevent misconstruction, or the words of the document, or abuse of its power by the government to be established under the Constitution. This could not be possible unless the words of these amendments were supposed to mean what they say, not what black-robed partisans can interpret them to say.
The Bill of Rights were not written nor adopted in their order of precedence. The number one amendment requested by the States was set as the10th or capstone. “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.” In other words, above all the citizens of the various States were concerned most that the central government not run rough shod over the States which were the home republics closest to and controlled by the people. They feared that the central government would become a Leviathan, crushing dissent and smothering freedom.
And they never heard of the IRS, the NSA, or the EPA. They never imagined an unelected, appointed for life Supreme Court that would cancel amendments to State constitutions that were legally adopted according to the processes within those constitutions. Not since they had overthrown King George had they lived under the suffocating tyranny of a Patriot Act or rule by decree such as executive orders.
According to the amendment process in the Constitution, the States can offer amendments to the Constitution by calling for a convention to propose such amendments. Many people are afraid of a convention believing that those who advocate for a limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom could not carry the day and the Constitution would be altered in a negative way.
It is time to admit to ourselves that the progressives have been and are changing their “Living Document” every day in countless ways: executive orders, regulations (from the EPA for example) and legislation (the 4th Amendment bending Patriot Act for example). We must face the fact the dam has broken and the foxes are guarding the hen house. The ship has sailed and the fix is in. We need a reset button before we slide completely into the abyss of totalitarianism. The flag will still fly, the national anthem still play, yet the land of the free and the home of the brave will be fundamentally transformed into a centrally-planned, regimented, surveillance state.
Once the scales have fallen from our eyes and we see that just because they call themselves liberals, people who want to control every aspect of every one’s lives are no more liberal than any of the other statists who have sought total control to impose their idea of utopia on anyone at any time in any place.
What we need is an American Spring. We need Americans to act like Americans and demand the freedom that is their birthright. Freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose. We the People who believe in limited government, personal liberty and economic freedom have got to unite or we might end up joining a worldwide chorus singing, “And freedom, oh freedom well, that’s just some people talkin’ your prison is walking through this world all alone.”
The center no longer holds. We must all work to influence our States, our home republics, to reign in the runaway Washington-centered bureaucracy machine before we are strangled in the red tape and buried in regulations.
The States must prove their relevance or perhaps the States are out of date.
PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
The people of the founding generation did not think of Americans as Americans. They did not see them as one people but instead as citizens of the various states. Even as late as the Civil War, people such as Robert E. Lee, who disagreed with secession and wanted a united United States, left because his State seceded and not because he suddenly wanted Virginia to be another country. Another example of the feelings of many in the founding generation was the fact that the term “We the People of the United States” that opens the preamble to the Constitution caused great controversy during the ratification debates. It was pointed out as a blatant attempt to make the States irrelevant.
The Constitution was meant to improve the federation of the various States as created under the Articles of Confederation. It was not meant to create anything new. This was stressed over and over by the supporters of the Constitution in the ratification debates. The Framers voted by State, and, though some of the Framers wouldn’t sign the completed document, since it was adopted by all the States it was called unanimous. The ratification votes of the various conventions voted by state not as individuals. As provided in the original document the members of the Senate were not elected by the people at large. They were instead selected by the State legislatures. The house was designed to represent the people, and the Senate was designed to represent the States.
The Constitution never would have been ratified without this provision designed to protect the States from losing their integrity as sovereign republics which had voluntarily joined together. This was essential and this was generally understood.
So when was our social contract revised? How can a contract be unilaterally revised?
When did we agree to surrender our liberty in exchange for security? When did we agree to move from a voluntary federal republic to a centrally-planned democracy? When did our freedom from warrantless searches morph into 360° surveillance? When and how were the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights turned inside out and upside down?
The scariest thing I see about all this as I travel around the country is not that our totalitarian wanabes will use any excuse and any subterfuge to undermine limited government for the benefit of their power and their crony capitalist’s profit. No, that doesn’t scare me or surprise me at all. What catches my attention is that as I speak to more and more people about this creeping corporatism the majority of them say things like, “I’m glad the government is watching out for terrorists” or “If you’re not saying or doing anything wrong why should you care if the government listens in?”
Not only have Americans been dumbed down to the point where the majority of college freshmen need remedial studies, but these descendants of the pioneers have lost sight of the American Dream. Asked “What is the American dream?” most citizens today will recite the pabulum spooned out by the Federal Reserve Bubble Machine, the political hacks who gave them power, and the Wall Street Casino that profits by the game: “The American Dream is to own your own Home.”
That is not the American Dream! The American dream is limited government, personal liberty, and economic opportunity.
At what point do unilateral changes to a contract render it null and void?
I have long said, it will still be called the United States of America. The stars and stripes will still wave, there will still be elections, and we will still hear that this is the freest most prosperous nation on earth as our freedom slips away and our opportunities shrink.
During the ratification debates it became clear that the Constitution would not be ratified unless there was a promise that the first order of business for the new government was going to be to amend the document to state some things that a majority of people thought were missing. The promise was made and the first ten amendments were added. Today we call this our Bill of Rights. While some people can recite all of them and many more can recite a few almost every American knows they exist. The Bill of Rights has a treasured place in the American heart.
Few if any know what was said in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which is neither mentioned nor studied today. This sets out their purpose and is enlightening as a starting off point for understanding what they are and what we are losing.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution” (emphasis added). The Bill of Rights was added in order to prevent misconstruction, or the words of the document, or abuse of its power by the government to be established under the Constitution. This could not be possible unless the words of these amendments were supposed to mean what they say, not what black-robed partisans can interpret them to say.
The Bill of Rights were not written nor adopted in their order of precedence. The number one amendment requested by the States was set as the10th or capstone. “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.” In other words, above all the citizens of the various States were concerned most that the central government not run rough shod over the States which were the home republics closest to and controlled by the people. They feared that the central government would become a Leviathan, crushing dissent and smothering freedom.
And they never heard of the IRS, the NSA, or the EPA. They never imagined an unelected, appointed for life Supreme Court that would cancel amendments to State constitutions that were legally adopted according to the processes within those constitutions. Not since they had overthrown King George had they lived under the suffocating tyranny of a Patriot Act or rule by decree such as executive orders.
According to the amendment process in the Constitution, the States can offer amendments to the Constitution by calling for a convention to propose such amendments. Many people are afraid of a convention believing that those who advocate for a limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom could not carry the day and the Constitution would be altered in a negative way.
It is time to admit to ourselves that the progressives have been and are changing their “Living Document” every day in countless ways: executive orders, regulations (from the EPA for example) and legislation (the 4th Amendment bending Patriot Act for example). We must face the fact the dam has broken and the foxes are guarding the hen house. The ship has sailed and the fix is in. We need a reset button before we slide completely into the abyss of totalitarianism. The flag will still fly, the national anthem still play, yet the land of the free and the home of the brave will be fundamentally transformed into a centrally-planned, regimented, surveillance state.
Once the scales have fallen from our eyes and we see that just because they call themselves liberals, people who want to control every aspect of every one’s lives are no more liberal than any of the other statists who have sought total control to impose their idea of utopia on anyone at any time in any place.
What we need is an American Spring. We need Americans to act like Americans and demand the freedom that is their birthright. Freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose. We the People who believe in limited government, personal liberty and economic freedom have got to unite or we might end up joining a worldwide chorus singing, “And freedom, oh freedom well, that’s just some people talkin’ your prison is walking through this world all alone.”
The center no longer holds. We must all work to influence our States, our home republics, to reign in the runaway Washington-centered bureaucracy machine before we are strangled in the red tape and buried in regulations.
The States must prove their relevance or perhaps the States are out of date.
PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
June 25, 2013: President Obama wipes his face as he speaks about climate change, Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at Georgetown University in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Restructure US government to make “huge” green changes in America, study proposes
By George Russell
Published July 09, 2013
FoxNews.com
EXCLUSIVE: The Obama administration should dramatically reorganize the relationships between America’s federal departments and agencies, and overcome legal barriers to help install the nebulous principle of “sustainability” across government, the economy and society at large, according to a new National Research Council study sponsored by many of the federal departments that would be most affected.
The study also calls for installing sustainability in the “culture of government” and recommends that the U.S. look for inspiration to a number of “national sustainable development strategies” adopted under the United Nation’s controversial Agenda 21, a highly detailed blueprint for reworking the global economy and environment that was reaffirmed at last year’s Rio + 20 summit on sustainable development.
National sustainable development plans are mandated under Chapter 8 of Agenda 21, titled “Integrating Environment and Development in Decision-Making,” which declared that governments should “where necessary, modify and strengthen procedures so as to facilitate the integrated consideration of social, economic and environmental issues.” Currently, more than 100 nations have adopted such strategies. The U.S. is not among them.
The new document, titled “Sustainability for the Nation, Resource Connections and Government Linkages,” appeared almost two years after it was commissioned by a consortium of federal organizations with environmental portfolios at a cost of about $1 million.
CLICK HERE FOR THE STUDY
The sponsoring agencies include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy and Agriculture, and a handful of private donors, including BP, Lockheed Martin, and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.
The aim of the proposed radical overhaul: to overcome “impediments or barriers” that “frustrate federal government efforts to create linkages” between agencies and other non-federal partners to address important “sustainability issues” that affect the country and the planet.
One of the important unanswered questions, the former official said, is “who gets to decide what sustainability is? Or what its outcome means?”
One of the major impediments, the study says, is created by America’s “basic framework of government, established by law,” which is “one of separated and dispersed authority,” in which “government agencies at all levels -- federal, state, local, tribal and even international -- can only do what they have been authorized to do by their governing authorities -- namely, Congress, state legislatures, etc.” -- not to mention the U.S. Constitution.
The new system of government organization, the study says, would bring federal, state and local branches of government together with “stakeholders,” activists and other interested parties in ways that would not depend on the old legal restrictions and facilitate new methods of dealing with the problems of creating a “sustainable society.”
The main instrument for accomplishing that change would be a new National Sustainability Policy that could be created by presidential executive order, similar to a National Ocean Policy created by the Obama administration two years ago.
Among the overall priorities of the reorganized government focus on sustainability would be “connections among energy, food and water”; “diverse and healthy ecosystems”; “enhancing resilience of communities to extreme events” and “human health and well-being.”
Their focus would be on meeting “sustainability challenges” in a broad and overlapping number of areas ranging from “natural resource domains (air, fresh water, coastal oceans, land, forests, soil, etc.), built environments (urban infrastructure such as drinking water and waste water systems, transportation systems, energy systems), and the social aspects of complex human systems (such as public health, economic prosperity, and the like).”
In other words, matters that touch upon just about everything in the U.S. -- perhaps the ultimate in government mission creep.
All of them, the study says, are “extraordinarily difficult to address on their own terms,” while “the federal government is generally not organized or operated to deal with this complexity.”
Moreover, the study says, “absent a national sustainability policy or a legal entity charged with developing or implementing such a policy, there are limited mechanisms to fund projects and programs designed to address sustainability issues” -- an indication that with a reorganization of government could come a reorganization of state, local and federal financing.
“The maintenance and enhancement of sustainability,” the study insists, “cannot afford to be constrained by fragmentation of authority, inadequate sharing of information, the structure of government, or other complexities.”
It is also necessary, the study says, “to maintain long-term initiatives on sustainability despite periodic temporal change in leaders (and changes in the beliefs and priorities of the leadership).”
As the study puts it, “major efforts will be required because the required changes are so huge.”
Indeed, the study says, U. S. federal agencies should not even wait for a formal reorganization of their tasks to begin, but could begin now to prepare mapping out “cross-agency linkages” “for any sustainability-related program or project” in order to “incentivize” the new style of coordination.
In addition, the study suggests that agencies may be able to make use of unspecified aspects of the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA (the foundation stone of the EPA) and other current federal legislation to expand the sustainability agenda; the report says that the laws are “significantly under-utilized.” The study does not, however, suggest how the current laws might be differently used.
The suggested changes could also affect such things as the federal government’s procurement procedures, which the study criticizes as constrained by “competitive bidding for the acquisition of goods and services.”
The NRC call for a sustainability revolution in government was published on June 28, just three days after President Barack Obama announced his latest intentions to combat climate change, including deep cuts in carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants, even more emphasis on renewable energy, and a leading U.S. role in international efforts at “climate cooperation.”
And it is only the latest of a series of blue-chip studies by NRC and the National Academy of Sciences aimed at retooling and reorienting important government agencies for managing and promoting the notion of “sustainability,” a term that remains largely formless -- though it almost always involves more expansive notions of environmental and social management.
In December 2011, for example, the National Academy of Sciences produced a related study, “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA,” which proposed changes in how the environmental agency analyzes problems and makes decisions, in a way that would give it greatly expanded power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development.”
The earlier study is noted approvingly in the current document, for discussing “the importance of incorporating sustainability into an agency’s culture and thinking ” and creating “a new culture among all EPA employees.” The latest document declares that adopting similar thinking in a variety of federal agencies is “essential.”
The recent study was prepared by a 13-member NRC study committee made up of scientists, former senior government bureaucrats and corporate executives, assisted by a handful of NAS staffers. The chair of the group is Thomas Graedel, a professor of chemical engineering, geology and geophysics, and currently head of the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale University.
Graedel takes a determined low-key approach to discussing the sweeping themes struck by “Sustainability Linkages,” emphasizing that the study’s aim is to set “over-arching guiding principles” rather than to “get prescriptive about things” in detail.
“It provides encouragement for parts of the government to get together on projects of concern,” he said. “There is no formula for how it all works out.”
The study, he observes, takes note of a variety of existing cases of federal, state, and local government cooperation with private interests to solve complicated environmental problems, ranging from green urban planning in Philadelphia to the bi-national management with Canada of the Great Lakes. (None of these evolutionary developments, however, required the force of a National Sustainability Policy to bring them into existence.)
A more sweeping example mentioned in the report is the administration’s ambitious and all-encompassing National Ocean Policy, first promulgated by executive order in July 2010 -- which also includes the Great Lakes under its stewardship.
For the two subsequent years, the administration solicited public comment before issuing a detailed implementation oceans policy plan and timetable for action last April 16. Among the government actions listed in an appendix on the planned timeline for the policy are to: “protect, restore, or enhance 100,000 acres of wetlands, wetland-associated uplands, and high-priority coastal, upland, urban, and island habitat” by next year (and another 2 million acres of “lands identified as high conservation priorities, with at least 35 percent being forestlands of highest value for maintaining water quality” by 2025); lay the groundwork for an oceanic carbon trading market by 2015; start to develop “new natural products and biotechnological processes from marine environments” by 2017; as well as developing a mammoth new system for surveillance of the oceans, coasts and contributing waterways.
All of the activities will take place under the supervision of a National Ocean Council, made up of 27 agencies, offices and other government bodies “to share information and streamline decision-making.” According to the policy document, it “does not create new regulations, supersede current regulations, or modify any agency’s established mission, jurisdiction, or authority.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE OCEAN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENT --- AND APPENDIX
Another sustainability study committee member, Lynn Scarlett, says that the changes suggested in the new sustainability report are intended to be more incremental than radical, and says that they should not be construed as an executive “super-mandate.” “We were very careful to underscore there is no one-size-fits-all need for more coordination,” she told Fox News.
(Scarlett is currently co-director of the Center for Management of Ecological Wealth at Resources for the Future, an avowedly non-partisan organization in Washington that claims to improve “environmental and natural resource policymaking worldwide through objective social science research of the highest caliber.”)
What is sustainability in the first place? The specific definition seems to elude this study and previous ones, except for an insistence on its interlocking social-economic-environmental nature. The latest NRC document blandly notes that a “sustainable society” is “one that can persist over generations; one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social system of support.”
The study sources that definition to the authors of the 1972 anti-growth Club of Rome volume, “Limits to Growth,” and it could fit all manner of societies -- though clearly not, in the new study’s view, the current American one.
The NRC project is a major event in the marriage of “sustainability science” with government policy that has become a common theme under the Obama administration -- although in ways that have often led to complaints at high-handedness by agencies like the EPA in encroaching on state regulatory regimes and overriding the concerns of industry and even private sector organized .
When it comes to the EPA, for example, says Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, himself a former state environmental regulator, “the agency has always been difficult from the point of view of the states, but this particular White House has unleashed zealous regulators to create the worst of all worlds.”
He notes in particular the use of “sue and settle” techniques by federal regulators in tandem with local environmental organizations to create costly settlements that bypass state regulators and legislators, including in North Dakota.
A new report by the free-market American Legislative Exchange Council claims that in the first term of the Obama administration there were ten times as many such “takeovers” of state authority as in the previous three presidential terms.
CLICK HERE FOR THE STUDY
What the new call for a sustainability revolution will do to the country, however, depends on how the principles espoused in the study are applied -- or not applied. “The devil is in the details,” says a former senior government official who is highly familiar with the intricacies of federal regulation policy. “It could be so grandiose as a unified theory that nobody will implement it. Or it could be something more dictatorial.”
One of the important unanswered questions, the former official said, is “who gets to decide what sustainability is? Or what its outcome means?”
Those questions would only get their answers if -- or when -- the sweeping proposals advocated in the NRC study are actually taken up by the Obama administration.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/09/restructure-us-government-to-make-huge-green-changes-in-america-study-proposes/#ixzz2YaVNUitM
Published July 09, 2013
FoxNews.com
EXCLUSIVE: The Obama administration should dramatically reorganize the relationships between America’s federal departments and agencies, and overcome legal barriers to help install the nebulous principle of “sustainability” across government, the economy and society at large, according to a new National Research Council study sponsored by many of the federal departments that would be most affected.
The study also calls for installing sustainability in the “culture of government” and recommends that the U.S. look for inspiration to a number of “national sustainable development strategies” adopted under the United Nation’s controversial Agenda 21, a highly detailed blueprint for reworking the global economy and environment that was reaffirmed at last year’s Rio + 20 summit on sustainable development.
National sustainable development plans are mandated under Chapter 8 of Agenda 21, titled “Integrating Environment and Development in Decision-Making,” which declared that governments should “where necessary, modify and strengthen procedures so as to facilitate the integrated consideration of social, economic and environmental issues.” Currently, more than 100 nations have adopted such strategies. The U.S. is not among them.
The new document, titled “Sustainability for the Nation, Resource Connections and Government Linkages,” appeared almost two years after it was commissioned by a consortium of federal organizations with environmental portfolios at a cost of about $1 million.
CLICK HERE FOR THE STUDY
The sponsoring agencies include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy and Agriculture, and a handful of private donors, including BP, Lockheed Martin, and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.
The aim of the proposed radical overhaul: to overcome “impediments or barriers” that “frustrate federal government efforts to create linkages” between agencies and other non-federal partners to address important “sustainability issues” that affect the country and the planet.
One of the important unanswered questions, the former official said, is “who gets to decide what sustainability is? Or what its outcome means?”
One of the major impediments, the study says, is created by America’s “basic framework of government, established by law,” which is “one of separated and dispersed authority,” in which “government agencies at all levels -- federal, state, local, tribal and even international -- can only do what they have been authorized to do by their governing authorities -- namely, Congress, state legislatures, etc.” -- not to mention the U.S. Constitution.
The new system of government organization, the study says, would bring federal, state and local branches of government together with “stakeholders,” activists and other interested parties in ways that would not depend on the old legal restrictions and facilitate new methods of dealing with the problems of creating a “sustainable society.”
The main instrument for accomplishing that change would be a new National Sustainability Policy that could be created by presidential executive order, similar to a National Ocean Policy created by the Obama administration two years ago.
Among the overall priorities of the reorganized government focus on sustainability would be “connections among energy, food and water”; “diverse and healthy ecosystems”; “enhancing resilience of communities to extreme events” and “human health and well-being.”
Their focus would be on meeting “sustainability challenges” in a broad and overlapping number of areas ranging from “natural resource domains (air, fresh water, coastal oceans, land, forests, soil, etc.), built environments (urban infrastructure such as drinking water and waste water systems, transportation systems, energy systems), and the social aspects of complex human systems (such as public health, economic prosperity, and the like).”
In other words, matters that touch upon just about everything in the U.S. -- perhaps the ultimate in government mission creep.
All of them, the study says, are “extraordinarily difficult to address on their own terms,” while “the federal government is generally not organized or operated to deal with this complexity.”
Moreover, the study says, “absent a national sustainability policy or a legal entity charged with developing or implementing such a policy, there are limited mechanisms to fund projects and programs designed to address sustainability issues” -- an indication that with a reorganization of government could come a reorganization of state, local and federal financing.
“The maintenance and enhancement of sustainability,” the study insists, “cannot afford to be constrained by fragmentation of authority, inadequate sharing of information, the structure of government, or other complexities.”
It is also necessary, the study says, “to maintain long-term initiatives on sustainability despite periodic temporal change in leaders (and changes in the beliefs and priorities of the leadership).”
As the study puts it, “major efforts will be required because the required changes are so huge.”
Indeed, the study says, U. S. federal agencies should not even wait for a formal reorganization of their tasks to begin, but could begin now to prepare mapping out “cross-agency linkages” “for any sustainability-related program or project” in order to “incentivize” the new style of coordination.
In addition, the study suggests that agencies may be able to make use of unspecified aspects of the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA (the foundation stone of the EPA) and other current federal legislation to expand the sustainability agenda; the report says that the laws are “significantly under-utilized.” The study does not, however, suggest how the current laws might be differently used.
The suggested changes could also affect such things as the federal government’s procurement procedures, which the study criticizes as constrained by “competitive bidding for the acquisition of goods and services.”
The NRC call for a sustainability revolution in government was published on June 28, just three days after President Barack Obama announced his latest intentions to combat climate change, including deep cuts in carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants, even more emphasis on renewable energy, and a leading U.S. role in international efforts at “climate cooperation.”
And it is only the latest of a series of blue-chip studies by NRC and the National Academy of Sciences aimed at retooling and reorienting important government agencies for managing and promoting the notion of “sustainability,” a term that remains largely formless -- though it almost always involves more expansive notions of environmental and social management.
In December 2011, for example, the National Academy of Sciences produced a related study, “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA,” which proposed changes in how the environmental agency analyzes problems and makes decisions, in a way that would give it greatly expanded power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development.”
The earlier study is noted approvingly in the current document, for discussing “the importance of incorporating sustainability into an agency’s culture and thinking ” and creating “a new culture among all EPA employees.” The latest document declares that adopting similar thinking in a variety of federal agencies is “essential.”
The recent study was prepared by a 13-member NRC study committee made up of scientists, former senior government bureaucrats and corporate executives, assisted by a handful of NAS staffers. The chair of the group is Thomas Graedel, a professor of chemical engineering, geology and geophysics, and currently head of the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale University.
Graedel takes a determined low-key approach to discussing the sweeping themes struck by “Sustainability Linkages,” emphasizing that the study’s aim is to set “over-arching guiding principles” rather than to “get prescriptive about things” in detail.
“It provides encouragement for parts of the government to get together on projects of concern,” he said. “There is no formula for how it all works out.”
The study, he observes, takes note of a variety of existing cases of federal, state, and local government cooperation with private interests to solve complicated environmental problems, ranging from green urban planning in Philadelphia to the bi-national management with Canada of the Great Lakes. (None of these evolutionary developments, however, required the force of a National Sustainability Policy to bring them into existence.)
A more sweeping example mentioned in the report is the administration’s ambitious and all-encompassing National Ocean Policy, first promulgated by executive order in July 2010 -- which also includes the Great Lakes under its stewardship.
For the two subsequent years, the administration solicited public comment before issuing a detailed implementation oceans policy plan and timetable for action last April 16. Among the government actions listed in an appendix on the planned timeline for the policy are to: “protect, restore, or enhance 100,000 acres of wetlands, wetland-associated uplands, and high-priority coastal, upland, urban, and island habitat” by next year (and another 2 million acres of “lands identified as high conservation priorities, with at least 35 percent being forestlands of highest value for maintaining water quality” by 2025); lay the groundwork for an oceanic carbon trading market by 2015; start to develop “new natural products and biotechnological processes from marine environments” by 2017; as well as developing a mammoth new system for surveillance of the oceans, coasts and contributing waterways.
All of the activities will take place under the supervision of a National Ocean Council, made up of 27 agencies, offices and other government bodies “to share information and streamline decision-making.” According to the policy document, it “does not create new regulations, supersede current regulations, or modify any agency’s established mission, jurisdiction, or authority.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE OCEAN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENT --- AND APPENDIX
Another sustainability study committee member, Lynn Scarlett, says that the changes suggested in the new sustainability report are intended to be more incremental than radical, and says that they should not be construed as an executive “super-mandate.” “We were very careful to underscore there is no one-size-fits-all need for more coordination,” she told Fox News.
(Scarlett is currently co-director of the Center for Management of Ecological Wealth at Resources for the Future, an avowedly non-partisan organization in Washington that claims to improve “environmental and natural resource policymaking worldwide through objective social science research of the highest caliber.”)
What is sustainability in the first place? The specific definition seems to elude this study and previous ones, except for an insistence on its interlocking social-economic-environmental nature. The latest NRC document blandly notes that a “sustainable society” is “one that can persist over generations; one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social system of support.”
The study sources that definition to the authors of the 1972 anti-growth Club of Rome volume, “Limits to Growth,” and it could fit all manner of societies -- though clearly not, in the new study’s view, the current American one.
The NRC project is a major event in the marriage of “sustainability science” with government policy that has become a common theme under the Obama administration -- although in ways that have often led to complaints at high-handedness by agencies like the EPA in encroaching on state regulatory regimes and overriding the concerns of industry and even private sector organized .
When it comes to the EPA, for example, says Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, himself a former state environmental regulator, “the agency has always been difficult from the point of view of the states, but this particular White House has unleashed zealous regulators to create the worst of all worlds.”
He notes in particular the use of “sue and settle” techniques by federal regulators in tandem with local environmental organizations to create costly settlements that bypass state regulators and legislators, including in North Dakota.
A new report by the free-market American Legislative Exchange Council claims that in the first term of the Obama administration there were ten times as many such “takeovers” of state authority as in the previous three presidential terms.
CLICK HERE FOR THE STUDY
What the new call for a sustainability revolution will do to the country, however, depends on how the principles espoused in the study are applied -- or not applied. “The devil is in the details,” says a former senior government official who is highly familiar with the intricacies of federal regulation policy. “It could be so grandiose as a unified theory that nobody will implement it. Or it could be something more dictatorial.”
One of the important unanswered questions, the former official said, is “who gets to decide what sustainability is? Or what its outcome means?”
Those questions would only get their answers if -- or when -- the sweeping proposals advocated in the NRC study are actually taken up by the Obama administration.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/09/restructure-us-government-to-make-huge-green-changes-in-america-study-proposes/#ixzz2YaVNUitM
Below are a few very important articles about just how big our Government has grown! We urge you to read them and recognize the deep trouble America is getting into!
"The liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."
"The liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."
From abortion to guns, new state laws go into effect around the nation July 1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/from-abortion-to-...
Federal Laws: To Infinity and Beyond!
By Ben Lewis on July 1, 2013
How many federal laws are on the books? 500? 1,000? 5,000? Go ahead, take a guess.
Give up? Yeah, well, so does the Library of Congress. In an attempt to answer the frequent question of how many federal laws there are, Senior Legal Research Specialist Shameema Rahman recently reported that “trying to tally this number is nearly impossible.” Well, that’s great. Congress has officially passed so many laws that their own repository of documentation can’t even keep track of them all.
As it turns out, the federal government hasn’t been able to keep track of their own laws for quite some time. Rahman reports that, “in an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses.” Continue Reading → http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/federal-laws-to-infinity-and-beyond/#more-16702
Frequent Reference Question: How Many Federal Laws Are There?
March 12, 2013 by Jeanine Cali
The following is a guest post by Shameema Rahman, Senior Legal Research Specialist in our Public Services Division. Shameema is a frequent contributor to In Custodia Legis; her most recent post was entitled Presidential Signing Statements.
At the reference desk, we are frequently asked to estimate the number of federal laws in force. However, trying to tally this number is nearly impossible.
If you think the answer to this question can be found in the volumes of the Statutes at Large, you are partially correct. The Statutes at Large is a compendium that includes all the federal laws passed by the U.S. Congress. However, a total count of laws passed does not account for the fact that some laws are completely new; some are passed to amend existing laws; and others completely repeal old laws. Moreover, this set does not include any case law or regulatory provisions that have the force of law.
In a conversation about this topic, a friend asked me, “What about the United States Code?” The current Code has 51 titles in multiple volumes. It would be very time consuming to go page by page to count each federal law, and it also does not include case law or regulatory provisions.
While we are on the topic, would you like to know the difference between the United States Code and the Statutes at Large? According to the Government Printing Office, “the Statutes at Large, is the permanent collection of all laws and resolutions enacted during each session of Congress.” The laws are arranged by public law number and are published in the Statutes at Large. The set also includes concurrent resolutions, proclamations, proposed and ratified amendments to the Constitution, and reorganization plans. Until 1948, treaties and international agreements approved by the Senate were also published in the Statutes at Large. This set is organized by year. So, if you are interested in locating the laws of passed in 1996 you need to consult the volumes for that year.
As for the United States Code, the Government Printing Office explains that ”the United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 51 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel http://uscodebeta.house.gov/ of the U.S. House of Representatives.” It is clear that the United States Code is a compilation of laws arranged by subject. However, similar to the Statutes at Large, it does not include case law or regulatory provisions.
In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In a Wall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-ma...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/from-abortion-to-...
Federal Laws: To Infinity and Beyond!
By Ben Lewis on July 1, 2013
How many federal laws are on the books? 500? 1,000? 5,000? Go ahead, take a guess.
Give up? Yeah, well, so does the Library of Congress. In an attempt to answer the frequent question of how many federal laws there are, Senior Legal Research Specialist Shameema Rahman recently reported that “trying to tally this number is nearly impossible.” Well, that’s great. Congress has officially passed so many laws that their own repository of documentation can’t even keep track of them all.
As it turns out, the federal government hasn’t been able to keep track of their own laws for quite some time. Rahman reports that, “in an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses.” Continue Reading → http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/federal-laws-to-infinity-and-beyond/#more-16702
Frequent Reference Question: How Many Federal Laws Are There?
March 12, 2013 by Jeanine Cali
The following is a guest post by Shameema Rahman, Senior Legal Research Specialist in our Public Services Division. Shameema is a frequent contributor to In Custodia Legis; her most recent post was entitled Presidential Signing Statements.
At the reference desk, we are frequently asked to estimate the number of federal laws in force. However, trying to tally this number is nearly impossible.
If you think the answer to this question can be found in the volumes of the Statutes at Large, you are partially correct. The Statutes at Large is a compendium that includes all the federal laws passed by the U.S. Congress. However, a total count of laws passed does not account for the fact that some laws are completely new; some are passed to amend existing laws; and others completely repeal old laws. Moreover, this set does not include any case law or regulatory provisions that have the force of law.
In a conversation about this topic, a friend asked me, “What about the United States Code?” The current Code has 51 titles in multiple volumes. It would be very time consuming to go page by page to count each federal law, and it also does not include case law or regulatory provisions.
While we are on the topic, would you like to know the difference between the United States Code and the Statutes at Large? According to the Government Printing Office, “the Statutes at Large, is the permanent collection of all laws and resolutions enacted during each session of Congress.” The laws are arranged by public law number and are published in the Statutes at Large. The set also includes concurrent resolutions, proclamations, proposed and ratified amendments to the Constitution, and reorganization plans. Until 1948, treaties and international agreements approved by the Senate were also published in the Statutes at Large. This set is organized by year. So, if you are interested in locating the laws of passed in 1996 you need to consult the volumes for that year.
As for the United States Code, the Government Printing Office explains that ”the United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 51 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel http://uscodebeta.house.gov/ of the U.S. House of Representatives.” It is clear that the United States Code is a compilation of laws arranged by subject. However, similar to the Statutes at Large, it does not include case law or regulatory provisions.
In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In a Wall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-ma...
Big Government Rights?
Many Constitutional scholars have made the same arguments and come to the same conclusion. That being said - the Current Three branches of the Federal government have created rules and regulations promulgated by the agencies that Congress created under statutes and given to the Executive branch for execution.
The EPA and the Endangered Species acts are a good example - the Congress created the agencies and gave them powers to promulgate such rules and regulations as required to meet the requirements set within. Well, we now can clearly see that the Executive wanted more powers and expanded the Clean Air Act to include C02 and Ozone so they could control all industries in the many States. This is not a Article I section enumerated power so it is IMO a usurped power which after much litigation the Supreme Court has created findings that give the illusion of meeting the Constitution when in fact it does not. So, we suffer along under Federal usurpation and the States have been stripped of the 10th amendment powers to nullify by the courts.
The healthcare issue is again an invented by the court power to tax for uses not found in the taxing authorizations of the Constitution. It remind me of my favorite question for all that say they are Constitutional experts - how does any area of the Constitution including the 16th amendment permit the government to tax income at different rates depending on how much one earns - that is a Progressive tax system to redistribute wealth. Clearly the last clause of the 5th amendment forbids the TAKING of property [wealth, money, profits] from one for the use of the public needs without just compensation. Clearly then the current tax system is in conflict with the amendments of the Constitution and no where is there any authorization to take from one citizen for the benefit of another citizen.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison
Mangus Colorado
The EPA and the Endangered Species acts are a good example - the Congress created the agencies and gave them powers to promulgate such rules and regulations as required to meet the requirements set within. Well, we now can clearly see that the Executive wanted more powers and expanded the Clean Air Act to include C02 and Ozone so they could control all industries in the many States. This is not a Article I section enumerated power so it is IMO a usurped power which after much litigation the Supreme Court has created findings that give the illusion of meeting the Constitution when in fact it does not. So, we suffer along under Federal usurpation and the States have been stripped of the 10th amendment powers to nullify by the courts.
The healthcare issue is again an invented by the court power to tax for uses not found in the taxing authorizations of the Constitution. It remind me of my favorite question for all that say they are Constitutional experts - how does any area of the Constitution including the 16th amendment permit the government to tax income at different rates depending on how much one earns - that is a Progressive tax system to redistribute wealth. Clearly the last clause of the 5th amendment forbids the TAKING of property [wealth, money, profits] from one for the use of the public needs without just compensation. Clearly then the current tax system is in conflict with the amendments of the Constitution and no where is there any authorization to take from one citizen for the benefit of another citizen.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison
Mangus Colorado
Progressive Keynesian Myths Debunked: The Coming Redistribution of Political and Economic Power Among the States
Cover of "The End of Prosperity: How High...
Ongoing effective economic experiments among the 50 states are sharpening, and definitive results will pour out in the real world, editorial and opinion fallacies to the contrary notwithstanding. That sharpening is the result of the increasing political segregation among the states, with 25 now in complete control of Republicans in the Governor’s office and in majorities in the state legislatures, and 15 in the same complete control by the Democrats.
That sharpening is further exacerbated by the overconfidence of so-called “progressives” in reaction to the election of 2012, which they are certain heralds the greening of America – the abandonment by rising American majorities of the foundations of traditional American prosperity and success, in favor of European concepts of social justice and neo-Marxism. That overconfidence is leading the Democrat controlled states to embrace more radical left nostrums.
Hence we see accelerating tax rate increases in California, New York and Illinois, combined with overregulation driving out dramatic, emerging, real world opportunities in resource development and other market prospects.
The likely outcome of these economic experiments is carefully presented in the recent publication by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) of Tax Myths Debunked, authored by economists Eric Fruits and Randall Pozdena. That publication wields both meticulous logic and authoritative empirical support to definitively grind to dust economic myths advocated by “progressives” with religious fervor.
One such myth is the hopelessly outdated Keynesian notion that increased government spending stimulates the economy during recession. As the authors note, “The Obama Administration and its liberal allies in Congress forgot the dismal performance of Keynesian-type deficit spending as a stimulus of growth in the 1960s and 1970s and embarked on an aggressive deficit spending policy anyway.”
That was the nearly $1 trillion dollar so-called “stimulus” that Obama and the Democrats waived through Congress as the first major act of the Obama Administration in February, 2009. Keynesian policies failed so thoroughly in the 1970s, leading to both double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, that it is puzzling as to why Obama returned to them, as if he is ignorant not only of what happened then, but of everything that happened after then, from 1980 on. Ronald Reagan explicitly scraped Keynesian nostrums, embracing instead the new, modern supply side economics, which focuses on incentives for increased production to restore economic growth and prosperity, rather than increased demand. Inflation was quickly subdued, shocking the Washington Establishment, and the economy took off on a generation long, 25 year, economic boom from 1982 to 2007, which Art Laffer and Steve Moore called “the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet,” in their 2008 book, The End of Prosperity.
That is why I have called Obama’s economic policies Rip Van Winkle economics, because Obama seems to have slept through that 25 year economic boom, and to be totally unaware of everything that happened then, in his own country.
The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry bookkeeping. If the government spends more, where does the money for that increased spending come from? Either from increased borrowing, or increased taxes, which both take an equal amount of resources and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending. So not only can there not be a net increase in aggregate, or total, demand from these policies, the spending is in truth a net drag on growth, as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the government. That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s, as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression, and it hasn’t worked anywhere else since.
But most fundamentally, economic growth is not driven by increasing demand, which is insatiable, but by increased production or output (supply), which is driven by incentives for productive activity. In other words, just as an individual cannot spend himself rich, neither can a nation. Prosperity is determined by production, just as an individual increases his or her income by becoming more productive.
Demand can never be inadequate in a market economy. If the demand for any product or service is not strong enough, the price of the good or service will fall, until demand equals supply. The people can never spend more than they produce, and so increase “aggregate demand.” And they will never spend less than they produce, leaving demand inadequate, for they will either consume or save every dime that they earn or produce. The consumption goes into consumer spending, and the savings goes into capital spending (which is actually what makes us richer and more prosperous over the long run, as discussed further below).
Fruits and Pozdena recount the consequently all too predictable, dismal results, from Obama’s Rip Van Winkle, 2009 “stimulus,”
“The president’s economists predicted that by the fourth quarter of 2010 the stimulus would have led to employment of 137.5 million. Instead, actual employment was 7.3 million lower than the administration’s projections, and unemployment rates reached 10 percent. They projected that 2012 unemployment would be only 5.75 percent. Instead, unemployment is hovering around 8 percent, with much of that ‘improvement’ coming from individuals leaving the labor force unable to find employment.”
The only reason that Keynesian economics has survived for so long in western thinking is not because it works, or even makes any sense, but because it justifies what liberal politicians already want to do – spend with reckless abandon, run bigger and bigger deficits so they don’t have to explicitly pay for it with higher taxes today, and run up the national debt, which will be someone else’s problem later. The truth is, as Fruits and Pozdena explain, “A large and long-standing body of literature finds that increased or higher government spending tends to reduce economic growth rather than increase it.”
They cite Baumol, W. J. (1967), “Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis.” American Economic Review, 57(3): 415–426 as showing 45 years ago that shifting resources from high productivity growth sectors to low productivity growth sectors, such as government services, will cause the growth rate of overall productivity to decline. They cite Barro, R. J. (1991), “Economic growth in a cross section of countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2): 407–443 as showing that government consumption has no effect in increasing private productivity, or in other words in restoring economic growth. Instead, Barro found that increased government consumption lowers saving and growth through the distorting effects of taxation or government expenditure programs.
A review of data from the G-7 countries by E. Hseih and K. Lai (1994) found no evidence that increased government spending increases the rate of growth of per capita GDP. Barro, R. J. (1996), “Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study.” Working Paper No. 5698, National Bureau of Economic Research found that most government spending does not increase productivity, and that increased government spending relative to the economy reduces investment and growth.
Harvard Professor Alesina, A., along with Perotti, R. in “Fiscal Expansions and Adjustments in OECD Countries.” Economic Policy, n.21, 207-247 (1995) found based on a cross-country analysis of OECD studies that reducing the share of public spending in the economy would increase economic growth by increasing investment. Alesina A., Ardagna, S., Perotti, R., and Schiantarelli, F. (2002), “Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment,” American Economic Review, Vol. 92, no. 3, June 2002, 571-589 argue that government spending cuts are the most stimulative policy for economic growth in a recession.
The bottom line is that Keynesian economics has long been refuted by experience, empirical evidence, and logic, and the failed doctrine now needs to be put to bed, in American colleges and universities, and throughout the councils of government. Moreover, Obama should have known better, given that Keynesian economics has failed so badly every time it has been tried, from the 1930s to the 1970s, and all around the world since then. He had a responsibility to the American people to know better.
Another “progressive” myth debunked by Fruits and Pozdena is that raising tax rates will not harm the economy. Often cited is that tax rates were very high in the 1950s, yet the economy still grew. Perhaps if we bombed to smithereens all our economic competitors, as had recently been done in the 1950s, high tax rates would not be as harmful. But Kennedy did not think those high 1950s tax rates were harmless. He campaigned in 1960 against what he saw as the weak Eisenhower economy, and advocated an across the board 30% cut in tax rates. After that was mostly enacted after his death, the economy boomed, and revenues actually soared.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/14/progressive-keynesian-myths-debunked-the-coming-redistribution-of-political-and-economic-power-among-the-states/
Ongoing effective economic experiments among the 50 states are sharpening, and definitive results will pour out in the real world, editorial and opinion fallacies to the contrary notwithstanding. That sharpening is the result of the increasing political segregation among the states, with 25 now in complete control of Republicans in the Governor’s office and in majorities in the state legislatures, and 15 in the same complete control by the Democrats.
That sharpening is further exacerbated by the overconfidence of so-called “progressives” in reaction to the election of 2012, which they are certain heralds the greening of America – the abandonment by rising American majorities of the foundations of traditional American prosperity and success, in favor of European concepts of social justice and neo-Marxism. That overconfidence is leading the Democrat controlled states to embrace more radical left nostrums.
Hence we see accelerating tax rate increases in California, New York and Illinois, combined with overregulation driving out dramatic, emerging, real world opportunities in resource development and other market prospects.
The likely outcome of these economic experiments is carefully presented in the recent publication by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) of Tax Myths Debunked, authored by economists Eric Fruits and Randall Pozdena. That publication wields both meticulous logic and authoritative empirical support to definitively grind to dust economic myths advocated by “progressives” with religious fervor.
One such myth is the hopelessly outdated Keynesian notion that increased government spending stimulates the economy during recession. As the authors note, “The Obama Administration and its liberal allies in Congress forgot the dismal performance of Keynesian-type deficit spending as a stimulus of growth in the 1960s and 1970s and embarked on an aggressive deficit spending policy anyway.”
That was the nearly $1 trillion dollar so-called “stimulus” that Obama and the Democrats waived through Congress as the first major act of the Obama Administration in February, 2009. Keynesian policies failed so thoroughly in the 1970s, leading to both double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, that it is puzzling as to why Obama returned to them, as if he is ignorant not only of what happened then, but of everything that happened after then, from 1980 on. Ronald Reagan explicitly scraped Keynesian nostrums, embracing instead the new, modern supply side economics, which focuses on incentives for increased production to restore economic growth and prosperity, rather than increased demand. Inflation was quickly subdued, shocking the Washington Establishment, and the economy took off on a generation long, 25 year, economic boom from 1982 to 2007, which Art Laffer and Steve Moore called “the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet,” in their 2008 book, The End of Prosperity.
That is why I have called Obama’s economic policies Rip Van Winkle economics, because Obama seems to have slept through that 25 year economic boom, and to be totally unaware of everything that happened then, in his own country.
The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry bookkeeping. If the government spends more, where does the money for that increased spending come from? Either from increased borrowing, or increased taxes, which both take an equal amount of resources and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending. So not only can there not be a net increase in aggregate, or total, demand from these policies, the spending is in truth a net drag on growth, as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the government. That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s, as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression, and it hasn’t worked anywhere else since.
But most fundamentally, economic growth is not driven by increasing demand, which is insatiable, but by increased production or output (supply), which is driven by incentives for productive activity. In other words, just as an individual cannot spend himself rich, neither can a nation. Prosperity is determined by production, just as an individual increases his or her income by becoming more productive.
Demand can never be inadequate in a market economy. If the demand for any product or service is not strong enough, the price of the good or service will fall, until demand equals supply. The people can never spend more than they produce, and so increase “aggregate demand.” And they will never spend less than they produce, leaving demand inadequate, for they will either consume or save every dime that they earn or produce. The consumption goes into consumer spending, and the savings goes into capital spending (which is actually what makes us richer and more prosperous over the long run, as discussed further below).
Fruits and Pozdena recount the consequently all too predictable, dismal results, from Obama’s Rip Van Winkle, 2009 “stimulus,”
“The president’s economists predicted that by the fourth quarter of 2010 the stimulus would have led to employment of 137.5 million. Instead, actual employment was 7.3 million lower than the administration’s projections, and unemployment rates reached 10 percent. They projected that 2012 unemployment would be only 5.75 percent. Instead, unemployment is hovering around 8 percent, with much of that ‘improvement’ coming from individuals leaving the labor force unable to find employment.”
The only reason that Keynesian economics has survived for so long in western thinking is not because it works, or even makes any sense, but because it justifies what liberal politicians already want to do – spend with reckless abandon, run bigger and bigger deficits so they don’t have to explicitly pay for it with higher taxes today, and run up the national debt, which will be someone else’s problem later. The truth is, as Fruits and Pozdena explain, “A large and long-standing body of literature finds that increased or higher government spending tends to reduce economic growth rather than increase it.”
They cite Baumol, W. J. (1967), “Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis.” American Economic Review, 57(3): 415–426 as showing 45 years ago that shifting resources from high productivity growth sectors to low productivity growth sectors, such as government services, will cause the growth rate of overall productivity to decline. They cite Barro, R. J. (1991), “Economic growth in a cross section of countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2): 407–443 as showing that government consumption has no effect in increasing private productivity, or in other words in restoring economic growth. Instead, Barro found that increased government consumption lowers saving and growth through the distorting effects of taxation or government expenditure programs.
A review of data from the G-7 countries by E. Hseih and K. Lai (1994) found no evidence that increased government spending increases the rate of growth of per capita GDP. Barro, R. J. (1996), “Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study.” Working Paper No. 5698, National Bureau of Economic Research found that most government spending does not increase productivity, and that increased government spending relative to the economy reduces investment and growth.
Harvard Professor Alesina, A., along with Perotti, R. in “Fiscal Expansions and Adjustments in OECD Countries.” Economic Policy, n.21, 207-247 (1995) found based on a cross-country analysis of OECD studies that reducing the share of public spending in the economy would increase economic growth by increasing investment. Alesina A., Ardagna, S., Perotti, R., and Schiantarelli, F. (2002), “Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment,” American Economic Review, Vol. 92, no. 3, June 2002, 571-589 argue that government spending cuts are the most stimulative policy for economic growth in a recession.
The bottom line is that Keynesian economics has long been refuted by experience, empirical evidence, and logic, and the failed doctrine now needs to be put to bed, in American colleges and universities, and throughout the councils of government. Moreover, Obama should have known better, given that Keynesian economics has failed so badly every time it has been tried, from the 1930s to the 1970s, and all around the world since then. He had a responsibility to the American people to know better.
Another “progressive” myth debunked by Fruits and Pozdena is that raising tax rates will not harm the economy. Often cited is that tax rates were very high in the 1950s, yet the economy still grew. Perhaps if we bombed to smithereens all our economic competitors, as had recently been done in the 1950s, high tax rates would not be as harmful. But Kennedy did not think those high 1950s tax rates were harmless. He campaigned in 1960 against what he saw as the weak Eisenhower economy, and advocated an across the board 30% cut in tax rates. After that was mostly enacted after his death, the economy boomed, and revenues actually soared.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/14/progressive-keynesian-myths-debunked-the-coming-redistribution-of-political-and-economic-power-among-the-states/
|
By Thomas S. Kidd On June 15, 2013 Fears about the pervasive reach of our intelligence services soared to unprecedented levels with the recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, which gobbles up citizens’ phone and internet records in hopes of finding terrorists. In spite of earlier direct denials by officials such as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we now know that intelligence agents have warrantless access to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans. |
How much did the Founding Fathers worry about what they called “general warrants,” or broad-based searches not prompted by reasonable evidence of criminal activity? Admittedly, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have fathomed the technological advances behind cell phones and the internet that have presented the opportunity for such massive technological snooping. Nor could they have envisioned terrorists’ capabilities of wreaking massive death and destruction with weapons ranging from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”
When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”
Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.
Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.
Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?
Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author of Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/the-nsa-controversy-the-founding-fathers-and-the-fourth-amendment
Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”
When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”
Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.
Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.
Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?
Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author of Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/the-nsa-controversy-the-founding-fathers-and-the-fourth-amendment
Snowden: Arnold or Revere?
Benedict Arnold: The infamous American Revolutionary is synonymous with the act of Treason or a person that has committed treason against their country. Arnold began his negotiations through his wife Peggy Shippen while Commander of Philadelphia in 1778. Shippen's former friend Major John Andre' of the British Army made arrangements through one John Stansbury to pass information to the British. Shippen had many Loyalist female friends in which the information would be passed during weekly social gatherings. Gen. Arnold, always looking to make a financial gain during this time was lining his pockets with Loyalist monies to nullify certain of the Continental Armies orders of re-occupation.
In July, 1780, Arnold was given command of Fort West Point, a vital strong hold on the Hudson River. At this time, and still in contact with Major Arne's negotiated the surrender of West Point for 10,000 British Pounds. Arnold was also petitioning Gen Washington for more supplies for an already over stocked Fort and selling the surplus on the black market. He also kept delaying orders to repair the very important blockade chain across the Hudson River. Later in the year Major Andre's was captured and Arnold’s activities were exposed. When Arnold knew of Major Andre's capture he fled down the Hudson and joined the British Army. Arnold was commissioned a Brigadier General, received 360 pound annual pension and 6,000 pound reward, a lesser amount because he never surrendered Fort West Point. Arnold commanded several attacks on the Continental Army, first in Virginia and later in Connecticut.
When the War ended Arnold went to England and was welcomed by King George and Prime Minister Lord North. After the fall of the Prime Minister, North’s Tory Government and the anti-war Whig Party took over, Arnold fell into disfavor.....one member stating about Arnold "a mean mercenary who, having adopted a cause for the sale of plunder quits it when convicted of the charges."
And here is what Benjamin Franklin said about Arnold; "Judas sold one man, Arnold three millions." and Alexander Scammell said this of the act "black as hell."
Paul Revere: The time is between 8pm and 10pm on April 18, 1775 that Paul Revere and Mr. Dawes received word that the British Army is on the move from Boston. By a previous meeting it is agreed that the leadership (Samuel Adams and John Hancock) in Lexington must be warned. After the Famous North Church signal, Revere continued alone to the Charles River and under the guns of a Blockading English Warship, rowed across the river to Charlestown where he continued East toward Lexington to meet with Adams and Hancock. After the meeting and returning west toward Boston, Revere was stopped and detained by a British Army patrol at Lincoln. The patrol, hearing shots coming from the Lexington direction and with Revere still detained marched in that direction. Nearing Lexington the patrol saw the gathering of the American Militia. The patrol commander, stealing Revere's horse ordered the patrol to reverse direction and march to warn the British Army of the Militia's gathering forces. Amazingly, Revere was released, at which time he immediately returned to Lexington and helped Adams and Hancock pack and escape capture of the British Army.
Mr. Snowden: An unknown American Citizen working for a private company for the National Security Agency as a computer "geek". I do know that Mr. Snowden is a former volunteer member of the U.S. Armed Forces, which means he had an oath that he swore to serve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Snowden supported Mr. Obama as president and would be considered a liberal for that support in my opinion.
Mr. Snowden has never been arrested in private life or court martialed while in the Armed Forces and no reprimands as to his employment while with the private company in the employ with NSA. Mr. Snowden has a moral conscience, is ethical and prudent in his assigned tasks. Mr. Snowden is not even 30 years of age, intelligent, has a girlfriend and made a decent wage, lived in a decent residence, drove a decent car and enjoyed his job.
So, WHY did Mr. Snowden disclose the National Security Agency’s activity. A view I feel is far more important than WHAT he disclosed or to whom he disclosed that information.
In my many years in law enforcement I have used informants as an investigative tool to solve crimes. Citizens that inform do so for a multitude of reasons; money, sex, fame, ego and yes, even patriotism. Do I, personally like informants? No I do not and most law enforcement people I knew felt the same, we used them to get to what we needed, however, we did protect that source at any cost. Strange way for the Criminal Justice System to work but it is imperative to understand one thing here....Every U.S. Citizen is INNOCENT until such time they are proven guilty in a court of Law before their peers. Because of this fair and impartial system and the guarantee of our rights, I believe that each and every law abiding citizen has an internal mechanism that KNOWS instinctively what is legal and not legal.
Mr. Snowden seemingly is between a rock and hard place now that he has disclosed the internal workings of what he considers illegal and unwarranted violations of private citizens’ lives by a Government Agency. That the information gathered by NSA is or has been used in an illegal and unconstitutional manner and will continue to do so. Mr. Snowden believes he did the legal and prudent action as an American Patriot by disclosing the illegal gathering methods on innocent citizens from his core instincts and understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, God’s Law, at the basic core principle that we are still a Nation of Laws.
Next Question is the reliability and truth of the information thus far that has been revealed by Mr. Snowden. By the reaction of every Government agency that has responded by Mr. Snowden’s revelations, I tend to believe Mr. Snowden. Mr. Snowden has no criminal back ground, a comfortable life style, enjoyed his job and had every reason to NOT disclose the information. Every single agency that uses this information is now doing everything within their power to find and "question" Mr. Snowden. Do I trust our government? No. I cannot trust anyone or agency that only 5% of the citizens of this country cannot trust. During my life time, Congress, the Presidents and U.S. Supreme Court have undermined, lied and covered up gross violations of citizens’ rights, passed illegal laws for their benefit, violated their oath of office, extended their powers, made secret pacts and secret warrants and denied any responsibility for their actions. NO, Never, especially this Government that has not demonstrated they can do what is Constitutionally proper and legal to do, and that is be responsible to the citizens for their actions.....
I read this morning that the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has before Congress announced that Mr. Snowden is a "traitor." I remember when a National Newspaper with the headline “Nixon says Manson Guilty" was displayed in the courtroom where Manson was being tried. There was such a public outcry against Nixon that he publicly withdrew the statement and apologized. So I asked myself; self, did I miss Mr. Snowden’s trial? No says I. Then how can Mr. Boehner proclaim Mr. Snowden a "traitor" if there has been no trial? The last I heard, Mr. Snowden has disappeared from Hong Kong...corpus delecti applies in all criminal cases in the United States and Territories there of; in other words....proof of the crime must first be presented before a trial and possible conviction....self-confession is not evidence enough of such act and must have collaborating evidence in support of such confession....
And this is not inclusive of most all Federal Law Enforcement Agencies wanting Mr. Snowden’s head on a platter. The very agencies Mr. Snowden is accusing are the investigating agencies. That is a HUGE CONFLICT of the justice system. If these investigative/enforcement agencies are allowed to pursue their agenda Mr. Snowden will either never be found, never afforded council, never afforded an impartial and fair trial before his peers and will be unjustly convicted in direct violation of Constitutional Law and guaranteed protection as a U.S. Citizen.
These Government agencies get their orders or directions from someone, an elected official in all cases. Congress has oversight committees for these agencies and they cannot plead ignorance or innocence of those agencies activities. The Executive Branch of Government through the Attorney General’s office directs all Government Law Enforcement Agencies. Through the Chain of Command these investigative agents do not do anything without the knowledge, approval and final responsibility of the Head of the Executive Branch of Government, the President. Very few in Congress can deny responsibility for the NSA's illegal invasion of citizens privacy, the President cannot deny his involvement and the Supreme Court cannot simply for their long history of unconstitutional case rulings denying citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Congress MUST be pressured to appoint an independent citizen investigative council. This citizen council must have unlimited access to all materials in this matter. Federal Law Enforcement and Investigative agencies must have NO contact with Mr. Snowden. Subpoena powers to question all elected and appointed members of all Government Agencies that are or potentially users of leaked information. Prosecutorial Authority of any and all violators will be granted upon completion of investigation.
Revere or Arnold?
Mr. Snowden, wherever you may be I hope you will read this. I and many others support you in what you do and are doing. I have only two suggestions for you....SHUT UP now. Dig your fox-hole deeper because there is going to be a very large amount of incoming “traffic” headed your way very soon. God Bless you sir.
Good bye, so long, and close the gate please.
Lawman
In July, 1780, Arnold was given command of Fort West Point, a vital strong hold on the Hudson River. At this time, and still in contact with Major Arne's negotiated the surrender of West Point for 10,000 British Pounds. Arnold was also petitioning Gen Washington for more supplies for an already over stocked Fort and selling the surplus on the black market. He also kept delaying orders to repair the very important blockade chain across the Hudson River. Later in the year Major Andre's was captured and Arnold’s activities were exposed. When Arnold knew of Major Andre's capture he fled down the Hudson and joined the British Army. Arnold was commissioned a Brigadier General, received 360 pound annual pension and 6,000 pound reward, a lesser amount because he never surrendered Fort West Point. Arnold commanded several attacks on the Continental Army, first in Virginia and later in Connecticut.
When the War ended Arnold went to England and was welcomed by King George and Prime Minister Lord North. After the fall of the Prime Minister, North’s Tory Government and the anti-war Whig Party took over, Arnold fell into disfavor.....one member stating about Arnold "a mean mercenary who, having adopted a cause for the sale of plunder quits it when convicted of the charges."
And here is what Benjamin Franklin said about Arnold; "Judas sold one man, Arnold three millions." and Alexander Scammell said this of the act "black as hell."
Paul Revere: The time is between 8pm and 10pm on April 18, 1775 that Paul Revere and Mr. Dawes received word that the British Army is on the move from Boston. By a previous meeting it is agreed that the leadership (Samuel Adams and John Hancock) in Lexington must be warned. After the Famous North Church signal, Revere continued alone to the Charles River and under the guns of a Blockading English Warship, rowed across the river to Charlestown where he continued East toward Lexington to meet with Adams and Hancock. After the meeting and returning west toward Boston, Revere was stopped and detained by a British Army patrol at Lincoln. The patrol, hearing shots coming from the Lexington direction and with Revere still detained marched in that direction. Nearing Lexington the patrol saw the gathering of the American Militia. The patrol commander, stealing Revere's horse ordered the patrol to reverse direction and march to warn the British Army of the Militia's gathering forces. Amazingly, Revere was released, at which time he immediately returned to Lexington and helped Adams and Hancock pack and escape capture of the British Army.
Mr. Snowden: An unknown American Citizen working for a private company for the National Security Agency as a computer "geek". I do know that Mr. Snowden is a former volunteer member of the U.S. Armed Forces, which means he had an oath that he swore to serve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Snowden supported Mr. Obama as president and would be considered a liberal for that support in my opinion.
Mr. Snowden has never been arrested in private life or court martialed while in the Armed Forces and no reprimands as to his employment while with the private company in the employ with NSA. Mr. Snowden has a moral conscience, is ethical and prudent in his assigned tasks. Mr. Snowden is not even 30 years of age, intelligent, has a girlfriend and made a decent wage, lived in a decent residence, drove a decent car and enjoyed his job.
So, WHY did Mr. Snowden disclose the National Security Agency’s activity. A view I feel is far more important than WHAT he disclosed or to whom he disclosed that information.
In my many years in law enforcement I have used informants as an investigative tool to solve crimes. Citizens that inform do so for a multitude of reasons; money, sex, fame, ego and yes, even patriotism. Do I, personally like informants? No I do not and most law enforcement people I knew felt the same, we used them to get to what we needed, however, we did protect that source at any cost. Strange way for the Criminal Justice System to work but it is imperative to understand one thing here....Every U.S. Citizen is INNOCENT until such time they are proven guilty in a court of Law before their peers. Because of this fair and impartial system and the guarantee of our rights, I believe that each and every law abiding citizen has an internal mechanism that KNOWS instinctively what is legal and not legal.
Mr. Snowden seemingly is between a rock and hard place now that he has disclosed the internal workings of what he considers illegal and unwarranted violations of private citizens’ lives by a Government Agency. That the information gathered by NSA is or has been used in an illegal and unconstitutional manner and will continue to do so. Mr. Snowden believes he did the legal and prudent action as an American Patriot by disclosing the illegal gathering methods on innocent citizens from his core instincts and understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, God’s Law, at the basic core principle that we are still a Nation of Laws.
Next Question is the reliability and truth of the information thus far that has been revealed by Mr. Snowden. By the reaction of every Government agency that has responded by Mr. Snowden’s revelations, I tend to believe Mr. Snowden. Mr. Snowden has no criminal back ground, a comfortable life style, enjoyed his job and had every reason to NOT disclose the information. Every single agency that uses this information is now doing everything within their power to find and "question" Mr. Snowden. Do I trust our government? No. I cannot trust anyone or agency that only 5% of the citizens of this country cannot trust. During my life time, Congress, the Presidents and U.S. Supreme Court have undermined, lied and covered up gross violations of citizens’ rights, passed illegal laws for their benefit, violated their oath of office, extended their powers, made secret pacts and secret warrants and denied any responsibility for their actions. NO, Never, especially this Government that has not demonstrated they can do what is Constitutionally proper and legal to do, and that is be responsible to the citizens for their actions.....
I read this morning that the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has before Congress announced that Mr. Snowden is a "traitor." I remember when a National Newspaper with the headline “Nixon says Manson Guilty" was displayed in the courtroom where Manson was being tried. There was such a public outcry against Nixon that he publicly withdrew the statement and apologized. So I asked myself; self, did I miss Mr. Snowden’s trial? No says I. Then how can Mr. Boehner proclaim Mr. Snowden a "traitor" if there has been no trial? The last I heard, Mr. Snowden has disappeared from Hong Kong...corpus delecti applies in all criminal cases in the United States and Territories there of; in other words....proof of the crime must first be presented before a trial and possible conviction....self-confession is not evidence enough of such act and must have collaborating evidence in support of such confession....
And this is not inclusive of most all Federal Law Enforcement Agencies wanting Mr. Snowden’s head on a platter. The very agencies Mr. Snowden is accusing are the investigating agencies. That is a HUGE CONFLICT of the justice system. If these investigative/enforcement agencies are allowed to pursue their agenda Mr. Snowden will either never be found, never afforded council, never afforded an impartial and fair trial before his peers and will be unjustly convicted in direct violation of Constitutional Law and guaranteed protection as a U.S. Citizen.
These Government agencies get their orders or directions from someone, an elected official in all cases. Congress has oversight committees for these agencies and they cannot plead ignorance or innocence of those agencies activities. The Executive Branch of Government through the Attorney General’s office directs all Government Law Enforcement Agencies. Through the Chain of Command these investigative agents do not do anything without the knowledge, approval and final responsibility of the Head of the Executive Branch of Government, the President. Very few in Congress can deny responsibility for the NSA's illegal invasion of citizens privacy, the President cannot deny his involvement and the Supreme Court cannot simply for their long history of unconstitutional case rulings denying citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Congress MUST be pressured to appoint an independent citizen investigative council. This citizen council must have unlimited access to all materials in this matter. Federal Law Enforcement and Investigative agencies must have NO contact with Mr. Snowden. Subpoena powers to question all elected and appointed members of all Government Agencies that are or potentially users of leaked information. Prosecutorial Authority of any and all violators will be granted upon completion of investigation.
Revere or Arnold?
Mr. Snowden, wherever you may be I hope you will read this. I and many others support you in what you do and are doing. I have only two suggestions for you....SHUT UP now. Dig your fox-hole deeper because there is going to be a very large amount of incoming “traffic” headed your way very soon. God Bless you sir.
Good bye, so long, and close the gate please.
Lawman
Excellent!!
Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data (original article)
Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing global surveillance data – including figures on US collection
• Boundless Informant: mission outlined in four slides
• Read the NSA's frequently asked questions document
Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 June 2013 10.08 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
• Boundless Informant: mission outlined in four slides
• Read the NSA's frequently asked questions document
Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 June 2013 10.08 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'
The source behind the Guardian's NSA files talks to Glenn Greenwald about his motives for the biggest intelligence leak in a generation
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance (click for video)
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance (click for video)
Cloaked in misinformation (the "more" to come from below)
The Truth behind the Holder Justice Department's search for leaks
What’s one of the most effective and expedient methods of taking an incident that is true and making it not only appear false, but outrageously and demonstrably false? You know the kind of false I mean… the “urban legend” type of false, causing anyone who hears about the incident to immediately dismiss it and attack the messengers as conspiracy nuts?
The answer is playing out, in real time, right before all of us, and we all need to understand the methods that are being used to cover the lie. Toanswer the question, though, is for a government official or agency to take what is true, wrap it in the bait of a larger lie where the larger, more outrageous lie is proven to be untrue. Soon, people don’t know what to believe, so they discount the entire story, even (and especially) the kernel of truth covered by the lie. Then, when anyone refers to the incident, they are told that the entire story was proven false.
I am referring to the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the cloakrooms, or the private, “members-only” areas just off the floor of the House and Senate. The story originated with the disclosure that the Associated Press received a letter from the Holder Justice Department last week stating that the government had obtained two months of telephone records that included each incoming and outgoing telephone number and the length of each call for over 20 different lines used by reporters. Additionally, the records also included personal lines for reporters and phones in the congressional press gallery.
Since the story broke, some lawmakers and others have gone public to decry the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the Cloak Room. Wiretapping indicates real-time telephonic surveillance of the phone lines by Holder’s agents. Wiretapping is, of course, the incorrect word to describe the DOJ’s attack on our separation of powers through the questionable, if not illegal use of his agency’s powers in a manner that seems to summon the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover during the darkest of times. The incorrect use of the word wiretapping was about all the tyrannical despots within the Obama regime needed to immediately and forcefully deny that any such surveillance had taken place—and be technically correct. Thus began the clever word games.
The truth, however, is even far more disturbing than the big lie. According to one intelligence official close to the situation who provided information specific to this incident, Holder’s Justice Department not only attacked the sacred separation of powers through his agency’s actions by obtaining the aforementioned telephone records, but what has yet to be disclosed is that all electronic communications data was included in this overreach.According to this source, the records not only included those within the cloak room, but in other areas throughout and within the Capitol. Not in real time, of course, so as to maintain the infamous Nixonian plausible deniability amid the semantics serving to sully the truth.
The purpose is to identify the media contacts used by members of the House and Senate as they look for leaks in the house of the people. Do not fall for the redefinition of the word “is,” and don’t dismiss the lengths to which the Obama regime is going, through Holder’s Justice Department, to identify the leaks that just might expose what’s really going on behind the scenes.
There will be more to follow.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55269
What’s one of the most effective and expedient methods of taking an incident that is true and making it not only appear false, but outrageously and demonstrably false? You know the kind of false I mean… the “urban legend” type of false, causing anyone who hears about the incident to immediately dismiss it and attack the messengers as conspiracy nuts?
The answer is playing out, in real time, right before all of us, and we all need to understand the methods that are being used to cover the lie. Toanswer the question, though, is for a government official or agency to take what is true, wrap it in the bait of a larger lie where the larger, more outrageous lie is proven to be untrue. Soon, people don’t know what to believe, so they discount the entire story, even (and especially) the kernel of truth covered by the lie. Then, when anyone refers to the incident, they are told that the entire story was proven false.
I am referring to the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the cloakrooms, or the private, “members-only” areas just off the floor of the House and Senate. The story originated with the disclosure that the Associated Press received a letter from the Holder Justice Department last week stating that the government had obtained two months of telephone records that included each incoming and outgoing telephone number and the length of each call for over 20 different lines used by reporters. Additionally, the records also included personal lines for reporters and phones in the congressional press gallery.
Since the story broke, some lawmakers and others have gone public to decry the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the Cloak Room. Wiretapping indicates real-time telephonic surveillance of the phone lines by Holder’s agents. Wiretapping is, of course, the incorrect word to describe the DOJ’s attack on our separation of powers through the questionable, if not illegal use of his agency’s powers in a manner that seems to summon the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover during the darkest of times. The incorrect use of the word wiretapping was about all the tyrannical despots within the Obama regime needed to immediately and forcefully deny that any such surveillance had taken place—and be technically correct. Thus began the clever word games.
The truth, however, is even far more disturbing than the big lie. According to one intelligence official close to the situation who provided information specific to this incident, Holder’s Justice Department not only attacked the sacred separation of powers through his agency’s actions by obtaining the aforementioned telephone records, but what has yet to be disclosed is that all electronic communications data was included in this overreach.According to this source, the records not only included those within the cloak room, but in other areas throughout and within the Capitol. Not in real time, of course, so as to maintain the infamous Nixonian plausible deniability amid the semantics serving to sully the truth.
The purpose is to identify the media contacts used by members of the House and Senate as they look for leaks in the house of the people. Do not fall for the redefinition of the word “is,” and don’t dismiss the lengths to which the Obama regime is going, through Holder’s Justice Department, to identify the leaks that just might expose what’s really going on behind the scenes.
There will be more to follow.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55269
Also see "Liars and the State of the Nation" (click link)
DHS insider: It’s about to get very ugly (and scary)
By Doug Hagmann Saturday, June 8, 2013
Washington, D.C.—Something quite unexpected happened just hours ago, in the dark of night, during a two-day layover in Washington, DC. My son and I are scheduled to take part in a seminar outside of Raleigh, North Carolina this weekend, so we combined our travels to include a side-trip to DC for a business meeting we had previously arranged. It was during this layover that something seemingly ripped from the pages of a spy novel took place.
While I was in the middle of a perfectly good and well needed sleep in the very early hours of this morning, I received a message. I cannot disclose how I received this message, at least not now. The discerning reader will understand why, which, by the way, would make a very interesting story alone. The message was extremely clear and precise. I was to meet my high level DHS insider at a very specific location in Washington, DC, at a time when most ‘normal’ people, except third-shift workers are still asleep. And, I was to come alone and make certain that I was not being followed, and I was to leave any cell phone or electronic device behind.
Seriously? I thought, as I was still trying to make sense of it all. Is all this really necessary? Is this really happening? I considered waking my son to accompany me, but opted to follow the instructions to the letter. Besides, I thought, he’s not the most affable middle-of-the-night person. I left a hastily written but detailed note in my hotel room before my departure in the event something happened. I looked at the digital clock on my rental car (my personal car would never survive our long distance trip). It was 3:20 a.m.
The meeting
I felt like I was part of a spy movie set in our nation’s capital. A chill rose up my spine as I waited in the dark of a chilly, misty and foggy pre-dawn morning. I was to meet with my DHS insider source at a time when most of the nation is asleep, at a place I could swear was featured in the movie All the President’s Men. No one and I mean no one knows I’m here, I thought, as I could see one of the most recognizable national landmarks in the distance.
My source appeared out of nowhere, or so it seemed, and handed me a cup of coffee with the astute observation that I looked like I needed it. So tell me, I asked impatiently, why do we have to meet at this time, at this location, and under such specific circumstances? ‘Because this might be our last meeting,’ he stated.
Maybe it was the lack of sleep, the time, the place, or the chill of the misty rain that caused my sense of foreboding. “Explain,” I asked in an almost demanding tone. So he did, without mincing words.
The details
“If anyone thinks that what’s going on right now with all of this surveillance of American citizens is to fight some sort of foreign enemy, they’re delusional. If people think that this ‘scandal’ can’t get any worse, it will, hour by hour, day by day. This has the ability to bring down our national leadership, the administration and other senior elected officials working in collusion with this administration, both Republican and Democrats. People within the NSA, the Department of Justice, and others, they know who they are, need to come forth with the documentation of ‘policy and practice’ in their possession, disclose what they know, fight what’s going on, and just do their job. I have never seen anything like this, ever. The present administration is going after leakers, media sources, anyone and everyone who is even suspected of ‘betrayal.’ That’s what they call it, ‘betrayal.’ Can you believe the size of their cahones? This administration considers anyone telling the truth about Benghazi, the IRS, hell, you name the issue, ‘betrayal,’” he said.
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.
“What’s that exactly mean, being on that list, that is,” I asked, trying to make sense of it all.
“It means that there will be censorship under the color of authority of anyone in the U.S. who is attempting to expose what’s going on in our name. It’s about controlling any damning information from reaching epidemic proportions. It’s damage control to the extreme. It’s about the upcoming censorship of the internet in the name of national security. The plans are already in place. These latest reports about ‘spying eyes’ have turned this administration and others connected to it into something very, very dangerous. They feel cornered and threatened, and I’m hearing about some plans they have to shut down the flow of information that is implicating them of wrongdoing. Time is short,” he stated.
“How are they going to do this? How is it even possible” I asked.
“First, they intend to use the Justice Department to silence journalists like in the Rosen case, but they won’t stop there. They will use a host of national security policies, laws, letters, whatever to take out the bigger threats,” he stated.
Next, they will use some sort of excuse, an external threat, and I believe it will be a combination of the economic collapse and a Mid-East war that will begin in Syria to throttle the information that is accessible on the Internet. And you know what? People will believe it!”
Based on what I’ve seen, most of which I should not have seen, the DHS is co-ordinating efforts with other federal agencies to begin to threaten American citizens with incarceration for non-compliance. You know the old talk of color coded lists? Well, this is what they will be using. People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama?s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets. And they’ve had five long years to get to this point. The ugly truth is that these policies and practices did not start under Obama, but long before. This is about the killing of our Constitutional Republic. The murder of our country and the stripping of our rights. While many have been preoccupied with one issue, few have seen the bigger issue. This is the ‘end game,’ for all the marbles,” he stated.
More to come
“Please,” pleaded my source, “get this information out while you can. Tell people what I’m saying, that we don’t have much time, that after the latest exposure of spying, Obama, Jarrett, Axelrod, and others, including members of Congress, have put their plans into high gear. This is about the Marxist takeover of America. This is about our country being able to survive another July 4th holiday. This is about a world war about to break out that will kill millions of people, all because of the agenda of this administration.”
“They are very dangerous and will do anything and everything to stop the onslaught of negative information that’s being reported by the main stream media. But only about one quarter of the real information is being reported. The other three quarters will be the game changer. But first, tell people what I’ve said. Let them know that more will follow but get this information out right now while the internet is still relatively free. Do it today.”
My source provided additional information, but I am abiding by his wish to get this much out. I am writing now to let people know that we are in for seriously dangerous times ahead. Deadly times. War, and censorship under the color of authority and under the pretext of of national security. It’s about to get a lot uglier. Stay tuned.
Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55749
Washington, D.C.—Something quite unexpected happened just hours ago, in the dark of night, during a two-day layover in Washington, DC. My son and I are scheduled to take part in a seminar outside of Raleigh, North Carolina this weekend, so we combined our travels to include a side-trip to DC for a business meeting we had previously arranged. It was during this layover that something seemingly ripped from the pages of a spy novel took place.
While I was in the middle of a perfectly good and well needed sleep in the very early hours of this morning, I received a message. I cannot disclose how I received this message, at least not now. The discerning reader will understand why, which, by the way, would make a very interesting story alone. The message was extremely clear and precise. I was to meet my high level DHS insider at a very specific location in Washington, DC, at a time when most ‘normal’ people, except third-shift workers are still asleep. And, I was to come alone and make certain that I was not being followed, and I was to leave any cell phone or electronic device behind.
Seriously? I thought, as I was still trying to make sense of it all. Is all this really necessary? Is this really happening? I considered waking my son to accompany me, but opted to follow the instructions to the letter. Besides, I thought, he’s not the most affable middle-of-the-night person. I left a hastily written but detailed note in my hotel room before my departure in the event something happened. I looked at the digital clock on my rental car (my personal car would never survive our long distance trip). It was 3:20 a.m.
The meeting
I felt like I was part of a spy movie set in our nation’s capital. A chill rose up my spine as I waited in the dark of a chilly, misty and foggy pre-dawn morning. I was to meet with my DHS insider source at a time when most of the nation is asleep, at a place I could swear was featured in the movie All the President’s Men. No one and I mean no one knows I’m here, I thought, as I could see one of the most recognizable national landmarks in the distance.
My source appeared out of nowhere, or so it seemed, and handed me a cup of coffee with the astute observation that I looked like I needed it. So tell me, I asked impatiently, why do we have to meet at this time, at this location, and under such specific circumstances? ‘Because this might be our last meeting,’ he stated.
Maybe it was the lack of sleep, the time, the place, or the chill of the misty rain that caused my sense of foreboding. “Explain,” I asked in an almost demanding tone. So he did, without mincing words.
The details
“If anyone thinks that what’s going on right now with all of this surveillance of American citizens is to fight some sort of foreign enemy, they’re delusional. If people think that this ‘scandal’ can’t get any worse, it will, hour by hour, day by day. This has the ability to bring down our national leadership, the administration and other senior elected officials working in collusion with this administration, both Republican and Democrats. People within the NSA, the Department of Justice, and others, they know who they are, need to come forth with the documentation of ‘policy and practice’ in their possession, disclose what they know, fight what’s going on, and just do their job. I have never seen anything like this, ever. The present administration is going after leakers, media sources, anyone and everyone who is even suspected of ‘betrayal.’ That’s what they call it, ‘betrayal.’ Can you believe the size of their cahones? This administration considers anyone telling the truth about Benghazi, the IRS, hell, you name the issue, ‘betrayal,’” he said.
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.
“What’s that exactly mean, being on that list, that is,” I asked, trying to make sense of it all.
“It means that there will be censorship under the color of authority of anyone in the U.S. who is attempting to expose what’s going on in our name. It’s about controlling any damning information from reaching epidemic proportions. It’s damage control to the extreme. It’s about the upcoming censorship of the internet in the name of national security. The plans are already in place. These latest reports about ‘spying eyes’ have turned this administration and others connected to it into something very, very dangerous. They feel cornered and threatened, and I’m hearing about some plans they have to shut down the flow of information that is implicating them of wrongdoing. Time is short,” he stated.
“How are they going to do this? How is it even possible” I asked.
“First, they intend to use the Justice Department to silence journalists like in the Rosen case, but they won’t stop there. They will use a host of national security policies, laws, letters, whatever to take out the bigger threats,” he stated.
Next, they will use some sort of excuse, an external threat, and I believe it will be a combination of the economic collapse and a Mid-East war that will begin in Syria to throttle the information that is accessible on the Internet. And you know what? People will believe it!”
Based on what I’ve seen, most of which I should not have seen, the DHS is co-ordinating efforts with other federal agencies to begin to threaten American citizens with incarceration for non-compliance. You know the old talk of color coded lists? Well, this is what they will be using. People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama?s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets. And they’ve had five long years to get to this point. The ugly truth is that these policies and practices did not start under Obama, but long before. This is about the killing of our Constitutional Republic. The murder of our country and the stripping of our rights. While many have been preoccupied with one issue, few have seen the bigger issue. This is the ‘end game,’ for all the marbles,” he stated.
More to come
“Please,” pleaded my source, “get this information out while you can. Tell people what I’m saying, that we don’t have much time, that after the latest exposure of spying, Obama, Jarrett, Axelrod, and others, including members of Congress, have put their plans into high gear. This is about the Marxist takeover of America. This is about our country being able to survive another July 4th holiday. This is about a world war about to break out that will kill millions of people, all because of the agenda of this administration.”
“They are very dangerous and will do anything and everything to stop the onslaught of negative information that’s being reported by the main stream media. But only about one quarter of the real information is being reported. The other three quarters will be the game changer. But first, tell people what I’ve said. Let them know that more will follow but get this information out right now while the internet is still relatively free. Do it today.”
My source provided additional information, but I am abiding by his wish to get this much out. I am writing now to let people know that we are in for seriously dangerous times ahead. Deadly times. War, and censorship under the color of authority and under the pretext of of national security. It’s about to get a lot uglier. Stay tuned.
Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55749
|
Fox News 'Your Secret's Out' (Full Video 04-14-13)Twenty-five miles due south of Salt Lake City, a massive construction project is nearing completion. The heavily secured site belongs to the National Security Agency.
"The spy center" -- that's what some of the locals like Jasmine Widmer, who works at Bluffdale's sandwich shop, told our Fox News team as part of an eight month investigation into data collection and privacy rights that will be broadcast Sunday at 9 p.m. ET called "Fox News Reporting: Your Secrets Out.” Read the full story HERE http://www.rightspeak.net/2013/04/fox-news-your-secrets-out-full-video-04.html |
|
Note: 1)This first appeared in Red State
2) All Bolded Blue texts are Links!
|
|
(Justice’s Eric) Holder Went Judge Shopping to Obtain Fox News Subp...
The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, a bulldog on the DOJ/Fox News secret subpoena story, reports that the effort by the Justice Department to obtain the controversial court order was arduous, contentious and unsuccessful until finally a third judge acquiesced.
The Obama Administration applies the By-Any-Means-Necessary approach.
Do You Want the Government Buying Your Data From Corporations?
Our government collects a lot of information about us. Tax records, legal records, license records, records of government services received– it’s all in databases that are increasingly linked and correlated.
Still, there’s a lot of personal information the government can’t collect. Either they’re prohibited by law from asking without probable cause and a judicial order, or they simply have no cost-effective way to collect it. But the government has figured out how to get around the laws, and collect personal data that has been historically denied to them: ask corporate America for it….
Sometimes they simply purchase it, just as any other company might. Sometimes they can get it for free, from corporations that want to stay on the government’s good side.
And there are companies aplenty that are willing to outright give it up to the Obama Administration.
Obama, Facebook and the Power of Friendship: The 2012 Data Election
Barack Obama’s re-election team are building a vast digital data operation that for the first time combines a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before….
The centralized nature of the database may raise privacy issues as the election cycle progresses. Jeff Chester of the digital advertising watchdog Center for Digital Democracy, which has been calling for regulators to review the growth of digital marketing in politics, said that “this is beyond J. Edgar Hoover’s dream.
“In its rush to exploit the power of digital data to win re-election, the Obama campaign appears to be ignoring the ethical and moral implications.”
How Chris Hughes Helped Launch Facebook and the Barack Obama Campaign
Obama 2012 and Facebook: Your Privacy, Diminished
Obama and Facebook in Warm Embrace
And before we give Google too much credit for resisting the aforementioned Obama Administration warrantless power grab:
White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin Slapped for Gmailing with ...
(Former Google Director of Global Public Policy cum White House official) McLaughlin was cited for two kinds of actions: using a personal email account for some professional email exchanges and for violating restrictions on contacts with Google, his former employer.
Most notable among the latter were a pair of conversations with the Director of U.S. Public Policy for Google about mobilizing Google’s resources to respond to negative press mentions.
Those breaches, according to a memo by OSTP Director John Holdren, “implicated” the Federal Records Act….
In other words, McLaughlin was using Google resources – Search manipulations? Your data? – to help the Administration spin away their negative-ness.
Obama & Google (A Love Story)
Some Perspective on Obama’s Bromance with Eric Schmidt
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Doubles Down On His Support Of Preside...
Everyone knows Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a big Obama backer. Now he has assembled a team of “former” (Obama campaign outfit) Organizing For Action data geeks to use Big Data to help Democrats.
Oh, sure, they’re pretending it is some grand effort to help companies and non-profits but this is how the left operates. It’s the Soros model. Pretend your investing in social welfare projects that just so happen to push only leftist agendas. This new company, Civis Analytics, will be no different.
Wait – the Left says that the IRS scandal shows that only Conservative groups abuse this project model.
What “Social Welfare” Work Do Tea Party Groups Perform?
Obviously not. Schmidt is taking the Obama Administration Abuse-of-Data model – and setting it up so that every Democrat can replicate and have at it.
We the Peasants have never been less alone. Big Brother is more and more in our computers, our homes, our heads – and will now thanks to this “social welfare” project be able to invite in his entire over-sized Family.
Just what the Founding Fathers intended (here endeth the sarcasm).
The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, a bulldog on the DOJ/Fox News secret subpoena story, reports that the effort by the Justice Department to obtain the controversial court order was arduous, contentious and unsuccessful until finally a third judge acquiesced.
The Obama Administration applies the By-Any-Means-Necessary approach.
Do You Want the Government Buying Your Data From Corporations?
Our government collects a lot of information about us. Tax records, legal records, license records, records of government services received– it’s all in databases that are increasingly linked and correlated.
Still, there’s a lot of personal information the government can’t collect. Either they’re prohibited by law from asking without probable cause and a judicial order, or they simply have no cost-effective way to collect it. But the government has figured out how to get around the laws, and collect personal data that has been historically denied to them: ask corporate America for it….
Sometimes they simply purchase it, just as any other company might. Sometimes they can get it for free, from corporations that want to stay on the government’s good side.
And there are companies aplenty that are willing to outright give it up to the Obama Administration.
Obama, Facebook and the Power of Friendship: The 2012 Data Election
Barack Obama’s re-election team are building a vast digital data operation that for the first time combines a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before….
The centralized nature of the database may raise privacy issues as the election cycle progresses. Jeff Chester of the digital advertising watchdog Center for Digital Democracy, which has been calling for regulators to review the growth of digital marketing in politics, said that “this is beyond J. Edgar Hoover’s dream.
“In its rush to exploit the power of digital data to win re-election, the Obama campaign appears to be ignoring the ethical and moral implications.”
How Chris Hughes Helped Launch Facebook and the Barack Obama Campaign
Obama 2012 and Facebook: Your Privacy, Diminished
Obama and Facebook in Warm Embrace
And before we give Google too much credit for resisting the aforementioned Obama Administration warrantless power grab:
White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin Slapped for Gmailing with ...
(Former Google Director of Global Public Policy cum White House official) McLaughlin was cited for two kinds of actions: using a personal email account for some professional email exchanges and for violating restrictions on contacts with Google, his former employer.
Most notable among the latter were a pair of conversations with the Director of U.S. Public Policy for Google about mobilizing Google’s resources to respond to negative press mentions.
Those breaches, according to a memo by OSTP Director John Holdren, “implicated” the Federal Records Act….
In other words, McLaughlin was using Google resources – Search manipulations? Your data? – to help the Administration spin away their negative-ness.
Obama & Google (A Love Story)
Some Perspective on Obama’s Bromance with Eric Schmidt
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Doubles Down On His Support Of Preside...
Everyone knows Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a big Obama backer. Now he has assembled a team of “former” (Obama campaign outfit) Organizing For Action data geeks to use Big Data to help Democrats.
Oh, sure, they’re pretending it is some grand effort to help companies and non-profits but this is how the left operates. It’s the Soros model. Pretend your investing in social welfare projects that just so happen to push only leftist agendas. This new company, Civis Analytics, will be no different.
Wait – the Left says that the IRS scandal shows that only Conservative groups abuse this project model.
What “Social Welfare” Work Do Tea Party Groups Perform?
Obviously not. Schmidt is taking the Obama Administration Abuse-of-Data model – and setting it up so that every Democrat can replicate and have at it.
We the Peasants have never been less alone. Big Brother is more and more in our computers, our homes, our heads – and will now thanks to this “social welfare” project be able to invite in his entire over-sized Family.
Just what the Founding Fathers intended (here endeth the sarcasm).
Dangers of America’s Growing Administrative State
Fourth Branch of Government
In the American political system, the fourth branch of government refers to a group that influences the three branches of governance defined in the American Constitution(legislative, judicial, and executive). Such groups can include the press (an analogy for the Fourth Estate), the people, and interest groups. U.S. independent administrative government agencies, while technically part of the executive branch (or, in a few cases, the legislative branch) of government, are sometimes referred to as being part of the fourth branch.
In some cases the term is pejorative because such a fourth branch has no official status. The term is also widely used as a picturesque phrase without derogatory intent. Where the use is intended to be pejorative, it can be a rhetorical shorthand to illustrate the user's belief in the illegitimacy of certain types of governmental authority with a concomitant skepticism towards the origin of such authority.
5/26/13 The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government
"It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter"
Below is today’s column in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section on the dangers of America’s growing administrative state. Ask any elementary student and you will hear how the Framers carefully designed a tripartite, or three-branch, system to govern the United States. This separation of powers was meant to protect citizens from tyranny by making every branch dependent on each other to carry out the functions of government. These three branches held together through a type of outward pressure – each holding the other in place through their countervailing forces. Add a fourth branch and the structure begins to collapse. That is precisely what is happening as federal agencies grow beyond the traditional controls and oversight of the legislative and executive branches. The question is how a tripartite system can function as a quadripartite system. The answer, as demonstrated by the last two decades, is not well. The shift from a tripartite to a quadripartite system is not the result of simply the growth in the size of the government. Rather, it is a concern with the degree of independence and autonomy in the fourth branch that led me to write this column.
There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.
Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.
The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.
When James Madison and the other Framers fashioned a new constitutional structure in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation they envisioned a vastly different government. Under the federalism model, states would be the dominant system with most of the revenue and responsibilities of governance. The federal government was virtually microsoptic by today’s standards. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies. [These numbers can be themselves misleading since much federal work is now done by contractors as part of "downsizing" but the work of the agencies has continued to expand. Moreover, technological advances have increased the reach of this workforce].
This growth since the founding has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.
The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.
This rule making comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.
The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.
These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a trial judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.
The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.
Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.
Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.
It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.
As the power of the fourth branch has grown, conflicts between the other branches have become more acute. There is no better example than the fights over presidential appointments.
Wielding its power to confirm, block or deny nominees is one of the few remaining ways Congress can influence agency policy and get a window into agency activity. Nominations now commonly trigger congressional demands for explanations of agencies’ decisions and disclosures of their documents. And that commonly leads to standoffs with the White House. Take the fight over Richard Cordray, nominated to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is highly qualified, but Republican senators oppose the independence of the new bureau and have questions about its jurisdiction and funding. After those senators repeatedly blocked the nomination, Obama used a congressional break in January to make a recess appointment. Since then, two federal appeals courts have ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the Constitution and usurped congressional authority. While the fight continues in the Senate, the Obama administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.
It would be a mistake to dismiss such conflicts as products of our dysfunctional, partisan times. Today’s political divisions are mild compared with those in the early republic, as when President Thomas Jefferson described his predecessor’s tenure as “the reign of the witches.” Rather, today’s confrontations reflect the serious imbalance in the system.
The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.
In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.
We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) May 26, 2013
[The statistics on the rule-making and agency case figures in the piece came from Anne Joseph O'Connell, Vacant Offices: Delays In Staffing Top Agency Positions, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913, 923 (2009) ]
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/26/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-...
In the American political system, the fourth branch of government refers to a group that influences the three branches of governance defined in the American Constitution(legislative, judicial, and executive). Such groups can include the press (an analogy for the Fourth Estate), the people, and interest groups. U.S. independent administrative government agencies, while technically part of the executive branch (or, in a few cases, the legislative branch) of government, are sometimes referred to as being part of the fourth branch.
In some cases the term is pejorative because such a fourth branch has no official status. The term is also widely used as a picturesque phrase without derogatory intent. Where the use is intended to be pejorative, it can be a rhetorical shorthand to illustrate the user's belief in the illegitimacy of certain types of governmental authority with a concomitant skepticism towards the origin of such authority.
5/26/13 The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government
"It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter"
Below is today’s column in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section on the dangers of America’s growing administrative state. Ask any elementary student and you will hear how the Framers carefully designed a tripartite, or three-branch, system to govern the United States. This separation of powers was meant to protect citizens from tyranny by making every branch dependent on each other to carry out the functions of government. These three branches held together through a type of outward pressure – each holding the other in place through their countervailing forces. Add a fourth branch and the structure begins to collapse. That is precisely what is happening as federal agencies grow beyond the traditional controls and oversight of the legislative and executive branches. The question is how a tripartite system can function as a quadripartite system. The answer, as demonstrated by the last two decades, is not well. The shift from a tripartite to a quadripartite system is not the result of simply the growth in the size of the government. Rather, it is a concern with the degree of independence and autonomy in the fourth branch that led me to write this column.
There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.
Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.
The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.
When James Madison and the other Framers fashioned a new constitutional structure in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation they envisioned a vastly different government. Under the federalism model, states would be the dominant system with most of the revenue and responsibilities of governance. The federal government was virtually microsoptic by today’s standards. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies. [These numbers can be themselves misleading since much federal work is now done by contractors as part of "downsizing" but the work of the agencies has continued to expand. Moreover, technological advances have increased the reach of this workforce].
This growth since the founding has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.
The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.
This rule making comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.
The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.
These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a trial judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.
The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.
Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.
Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.
It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.
As the power of the fourth branch has grown, conflicts between the other branches have become more acute. There is no better example than the fights over presidential appointments.
Wielding its power to confirm, block or deny nominees is one of the few remaining ways Congress can influence agency policy and get a window into agency activity. Nominations now commonly trigger congressional demands for explanations of agencies’ decisions and disclosures of their documents. And that commonly leads to standoffs with the White House. Take the fight over Richard Cordray, nominated to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is highly qualified, but Republican senators oppose the independence of the new bureau and have questions about its jurisdiction and funding. After those senators repeatedly blocked the nomination, Obama used a congressional break in January to make a recess appointment. Since then, two federal appeals courts have ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the Constitution and usurped congressional authority. While the fight continues in the Senate, the Obama administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.
It would be a mistake to dismiss such conflicts as products of our dysfunctional, partisan times. Today’s political divisions are mild compared with those in the early republic, as when President Thomas Jefferson described his predecessor’s tenure as “the reign of the witches.” Rather, today’s confrontations reflect the serious imbalance in the system.
The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.
In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.
We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) May 26, 2013
[The statistics on the rule-making and agency case figures in the piece came from Anne Joseph O'Connell, Vacant Offices: Delays In Staffing Top Agency Positions, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913, 923 (2009) ]
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/26/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-...
Washington Bureaucrats Unconstitutionally Making Public Policy
June 1, 2013 at 8:00 am Rich Tucker
Washington, D.C., is the country’s last “company town,” and the big industry is the federal government. So it isn’t received well here when someone dares to question the size or scope of government.
Recently, law professor Jonathan Turley took to the pages of The Washington Post to warn about the growth of the administrative state. “The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself,” Turley wrote. “Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.”
Predictably, some career bureaucrats didn’t like Turley’s message and registered their protests with letters to the Post. “If Mr. Turley were to check the beginning of regulations published in the Federal Register, he would see that these civil servants also have phone numbers where they can be reached,” one wrote. “Agencies like mine go to great pains to be open about our efforts and are subject to vigorous scrutiny by Congress and the courts,” added another. “They end up knowing just about everything but our shirt size. How much more transparent can we get?”
The complaints miss the point. Certainly many bureaucrats are nice people, and certainly they can be reached by phone, fax, or e-mail. The problem isn’t the people in the government; it’s that those people don’t have the constitutional authority to be making public policy.
As Heritage’s Joe Postell puts it, there are four major constitutional problems today:
The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.
The Founders gave us a system carefully crafted to divide power, but we’ve allowed bureaucrats to expand their reach. “Do we want to be governed by the rule of law as hammered out in open legislative debate, carried on by our elected representatives, directly accountable to us? Or do we wish to be governed by the expanding rule of regulation, the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us?” asks Heritage’s Bob Moffit. “The rule of regulation is the rule of regulators. But today, the rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government.”
All that regulation comes with a big price tag. “Annual regulatory costs increased by more than $23.5 billion during President Barack Obama’s fourth year in office—and by a total of nearly $70 billion during the first term,” write James Gattuso and Diane Katz in the latest edition of Heritage’s Red Tape Rising.
Some of those regulations may well be helpful, but only those that result from a constitutional process are fully legitimate. To ensure that they are, Moffit urges states to push back against the federal bureaucracy. “Beyond challenging national power in the federal courts, state governors and legislators should also respond politically to Washington’s regulatory excesses,” he writes. “The Founders indeed expected state officials to do precisely that in those instances where the national intrusions were ‘unwarranted.’”
Americans deserve a government that’s strictly limited along constitutional lines. That would be sure to generate some polite but firm letters from Washington bureaucrats. But it would be a major step forward for the rest of us.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/01/washington-bureaucrats-unconsti...
Washington, D.C., is the country’s last “company town,” and the big industry is the federal government. So it isn’t received well here when someone dares to question the size or scope of government.
Recently, law professor Jonathan Turley took to the pages of The Washington Post to warn about the growth of the administrative state. “The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself,” Turley wrote. “Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.”
Predictably, some career bureaucrats didn’t like Turley’s message and registered their protests with letters to the Post. “If Mr. Turley were to check the beginning of regulations published in the Federal Register, he would see that these civil servants also have phone numbers where they can be reached,” one wrote. “Agencies like mine go to great pains to be open about our efforts and are subject to vigorous scrutiny by Congress and the courts,” added another. “They end up knowing just about everything but our shirt size. How much more transparent can we get?”
The complaints miss the point. Certainly many bureaucrats are nice people, and certainly they can be reached by phone, fax, or e-mail. The problem isn’t the people in the government; it’s that those people don’t have the constitutional authority to be making public policy.
As Heritage’s Joe Postell puts it, there are four major constitutional problems today:
The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.
The Founders gave us a system carefully crafted to divide power, but we’ve allowed bureaucrats to expand their reach. “Do we want to be governed by the rule of law as hammered out in open legislative debate, carried on by our elected representatives, directly accountable to us? Or do we wish to be governed by the expanding rule of regulation, the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us?” asks Heritage’s Bob Moffit. “The rule of regulation is the rule of regulators. But today, the rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government.”
All that regulation comes with a big price tag. “Annual regulatory costs increased by more than $23.5 billion during President Barack Obama’s fourth year in office—and by a total of nearly $70 billion during the first term,” write James Gattuso and Diane Katz in the latest edition of Heritage’s Red Tape Rising.
Some of those regulations may well be helpful, but only those that result from a constitutional process are fully legitimate. To ensure that they are, Moffit urges states to push back against the federal bureaucracy. “Beyond challenging national power in the federal courts, state governors and legislators should also respond politically to Washington’s regulatory excesses,” he writes. “The Founders indeed expected state officials to do precisely that in those instances where the national intrusions were ‘unwarranted.’”
Americans deserve a government that’s strictly limited along constitutional lines. That would be sure to generate some polite but firm letters from Washington bureaucrats. But it would be a major step forward for the rest of us.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/01/washington-bureaucrats-unconsti...
Mapping the Contours of the Federal Government
How Many Government Agencies Are There?
You would think there would be a simple answer. However, the authors note that "there is no authoritative list of government agencies"
and that "many federal entities do not neatly reside in the executive branch." They observe that the official Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and 220 components of the executive departments, while the website USA.gov lists 137 independent executive agencies with 268 components. Other sources list different numbers. So the first section of the report addresses the question "What is a Federal Agency?" and comes to no real conclusion because "Congress defines what an ‘agency’ is in relation to particular laws rather than provide one overarching definition.
http://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/EXCERPT_ABA_Sprin...
http://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Sourcebook-2012-F...
White House Unveils First-Ever Inventory of Federal Programs
Embarking on a project long-sought by lawmakers and government efficiency experts, the Office of Management and Budget on Friday released a unique inventory of federal programs in 24 departments.
As called for in the 2010 Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, the inventory of some 1,600 programs was prepared by departments using a Government Accountability Office definition that deemed a program an “organized set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to carry out its responsibilities.” Each program listed includes a title, description and link to the strategic goals and objectives of the agency.
OMB spokeswoman Ari Isaacman Astles said “each agency further defined programs in a way that reflects how the agency delivers and discusses its activities with Congress and other stakeholders.”
In meeting Friday’s deadline for the inventory’s first phase, agencies posted their lists on their own websites and as discrete units on performance.gov. After agencies receive feedback on the program definitions, an updated release next year will add detail to the entries, supply links to further information and centralize them within performance.gov.
For years, many in Congress have expressed frustration at the inability of agencies to precisely itemize all the programs that receive funding. Such information has been scattered across the president’s budget, congressional budget justifications, USAspending.gov, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. An OMB backgrounder notes that “reporting about the government’s activities is often done in a siloed and decentralized way, which inhibits coordination across agencies and cross-cutting analysis across programs.”
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in an essay earlier this year titled “Duplication Nation,” complained that “it is nearly impossible to fully comprehend the vast expanse of federal programs that exist today. Although various sources, including USA Spending and documents released by OMB and CBO produce partial lists of various government programs, there is not an exhaustive list of federal programs. Every federal department is now administering programs that address challenges tasked to be addressed by other agencies. The government has grown so large and unmanageable, that even the experts, and the departments themselves, cannot compile a list of all federal programs within their purview.”
http://www.govexec.com/management/2013/05/white-house-unveils-first...
Federal Program Inventory
http://goals.performance.gov/federalprograminventory
Administrative Conference of the United States
http://www.acus.gov/
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is an independent agency of the United States government established by the Administrative Conference Act of 1964. It is also considered to be a federal advisory committee. The Conference's purpose is to promote improvements in the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the procedures by which federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, and perform related governmental functions.
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Independent.shtml
Independent establishments are created by Congress to address concerns that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. These agencies are responsible for keeping the government and economy running smoothly.
Agencies - Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=agency&mode=list&tab=list&tabmo...
USA Spending.Gov
http://usaspending.gov/
You would think there would be a simple answer. However, the authors note that "there is no authoritative list of government agencies"
and that "many federal entities do not neatly reside in the executive branch." They observe that the official Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and 220 components of the executive departments, while the website USA.gov lists 137 independent executive agencies with 268 components. Other sources list different numbers. So the first section of the report addresses the question "What is a Federal Agency?" and comes to no real conclusion because "Congress defines what an ‘agency’ is in relation to particular laws rather than provide one overarching definition.
http://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/EXCERPT_ABA_Sprin...
http://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Sourcebook-2012-F...
White House Unveils First-Ever Inventory of Federal Programs
Embarking on a project long-sought by lawmakers and government efficiency experts, the Office of Management and Budget on Friday released a unique inventory of federal programs in 24 departments.
As called for in the 2010 Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, the inventory of some 1,600 programs was prepared by departments using a Government Accountability Office definition that deemed a program an “organized set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to carry out its responsibilities.” Each program listed includes a title, description and link to the strategic goals and objectives of the agency.
OMB spokeswoman Ari Isaacman Astles said “each agency further defined programs in a way that reflects how the agency delivers and discusses its activities with Congress and other stakeholders.”
In meeting Friday’s deadline for the inventory’s first phase, agencies posted their lists on their own websites and as discrete units on performance.gov. After agencies receive feedback on the program definitions, an updated release next year will add detail to the entries, supply links to further information and centralize them within performance.gov.
For years, many in Congress have expressed frustration at the inability of agencies to precisely itemize all the programs that receive funding. Such information has been scattered across the president’s budget, congressional budget justifications, USAspending.gov, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. An OMB backgrounder notes that “reporting about the government’s activities is often done in a siloed and decentralized way, which inhibits coordination across agencies and cross-cutting analysis across programs.”
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in an essay earlier this year titled “Duplication Nation,” complained that “it is nearly impossible to fully comprehend the vast expanse of federal programs that exist today. Although various sources, including USA Spending and documents released by OMB and CBO produce partial lists of various government programs, there is not an exhaustive list of federal programs. Every federal department is now administering programs that address challenges tasked to be addressed by other agencies. The government has grown so large and unmanageable, that even the experts, and the departments themselves, cannot compile a list of all federal programs within their purview.”
http://www.govexec.com/management/2013/05/white-house-unveils-first...
Federal Program Inventory
http://goals.performance.gov/federalprograminventory
Administrative Conference of the United States
http://www.acus.gov/
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is an independent agency of the United States government established by the Administrative Conference Act of 1964. It is also considered to be a federal advisory committee. The Conference's purpose is to promote improvements in the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the procedures by which federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, and perform related governmental functions.
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Independent.shtml
Independent establishments are created by Congress to address concerns that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. These agencies are responsible for keeping the government and economy running smoothly.
Agencies - Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=agency&mode=list&tab=list&tabmo...
USA Spending.Gov
http://usaspending.gov/
