I started a blog called Derby’s Blog over a year ago. Originally it was my intent for it to be a mix of politics and anything else that came to mind. Since then I have decided to make a new blog of only political articles. This is that blog. Welcome to Deedon’s Blog.
Derby’s Blog still exists at www.derbysblog.com. Now it is limited to the “anything else that came to mind” category.
The articles dated before 2010 were originally posted on Derby’s Blog.
Most of the time It is good to think outside of the box. However, there is one box we should never think outside of: The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is a small box. I copied and pasted the entire Constitution, including the preamble and all 27 amendments, into my word processor. According to my word processor it is less than 8000 words. Eight thousand is a big number – if you are hand counting raindrops or grains of sand. For reference: a work of fiction that would be classified as a short story might well be up to 15,000 words. In case you want to check it out, the Constitution can be found online here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. I don’t recommend counting the words by hand, but if you would like to – go for it.
The nice thing about thinking inside a box is you have less to think about. Especially when the box is small. None the less, our hired help in Washington D. C. have a hard time with the limitations of this little box. It seems that almost none of them like to be confined. This seems so strange since they all took an oath to support the United States Constitution when they took office. If they don’t like the idea of staying within the confines of this little box, why do they run for office? Surely they know what is required before they run, don’t you think? Whatever the reason, they can’t seem to stay within that box.
If you want good government (some would call that an oxymoron), you have to keep up with what is going on. I’ve heard some say, “I have no interest in politics.” Maybe not, but remember this: Politics has an interest in you! So, first and foremost, let your senators, representatives and president know that you are paying attention and you will work to vote them out of office if they violate the Constitution. If they pay no mind to you, DO work to vote them out of office.
If you find it necessary to replace an unresponsive elected official, just be careful that you help find someone who will be more honest when taking the oath of office. Finding such a person who is willing to run is not an easy job, but it needs to be done. Maybe you can run. Mind you that while we are talking the federal level here, it is also important to take similar actions on the state and local levels.
Since it is almost impossible to keep power hungry politicians from running for (and winning) office, we must be prepared to act against the laws they create which violate their Constitutional restraints, along with our rights and freedoms. Read the rest of this entry »
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, in a small village in a distant and tiny and backward land . . . No, wait, that’s not quite right.
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, in a small village in a distant and . . . No, still not right.
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, in a large city in this very country there lived three little Piggs. Yeah, that’s it.
Well, it’s almost right. The Piggs were not necessarily little. And there were a lot more than just three. The three Piggs in this tale each represent many millions of Piggs living right here in the United States of America. We will call them Pigg1, Pigg2, and Pigg3, so as to distinguish one Pigg group from each of the other Pigg groups.
Pigg1 was just an ordinary Pigg in that he had a job (well, he did at one time) and he loved his family and he may or may not have gone to a house of worship on a regular basis. Pigg1’s goal in life is to live easy and accept any help offered from any source offering it – especially the government.
For much of his life, he and his family lived in an apartment. It seems he was unable to save enough money for a down payment for a house for his family. That was OK with him, except his wife really wanted the typical white picket fence surrounding their own little plot of land where the little (this time I mean it) Pigg1s could safely run and play. After all, that was the American dream and Mr. and Mrs. Pigg1 were nothing if they were not dreamers.
Mr. and Mrs. Pigg1 had both received a fine education in our government run education mills. By the time they had graduated they had learned how to read (as long as the words were short enough), how to do arithmetic (with a calculator), and how to ask for help in filling out employment applications, unemployment applications, and general welfare applications. They had also learned that the government is the solution to any problem they might encounter.
In addition, Mr. Pigg1 had learned to put cars up on blocks so he could fix them (maybe) and to do some general repairs of a lot of things as long as he had plenty of duct tape. The apartment manager tended to complain a lot about the car on blocks but Mr. Pigg1 ignored the complaints.
Mrs. Pigg1 had learned how to cook. She always spent the food stamps on fine convenience foods from the grocery department of the local Catchpenny store. She didn’t have to make the food go a little farther by adding fillers of bread or water (depending on the food in question) because the little Pigg1s were getting breakfast and lunch for free at school.
One day Mrs. Pigg1 heard about something called a no-doc mortgage. This had nothing to do with health care. It turned out it was a mortgage that would allow the Pigg1s to finance a house without documenting any income or assets. And why not? They deserved it. After all, Mr. Pigg1 still had a few months of unemployment coming and rumors were that the federal government was going to help the state extend that for several more months – or at least several more weeks. By that time Mr. Pigg1 would surely find employment somewhere – maybe. Also, the payments were going to be quite low on the APR mortgage as interest rates were very low. That’s because the FED kept pushing them down instead of letting the market set the rates.
Mr. and Mrs. Pigg1 agreed that this was certainly better than paying rent. So down to the local no-doc bank they went where they discovered that the government was ‘encouraging’ the banks to give these no-doc mortgages. These were also known as NINJA loans – No Income, No Job or Assets. Read the rest of this entry »
At the following link you will find a cartoon called “Make Mine Freedom” which came out in 1948.
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
I suggest you view the cartoon first, then read as many of the comments as you choose. As of this writing there are over 300 posted comments. Many of them deserve or require replies. I have chosen to reply to only one. I have not posted this at the original site for reasons of my own. Still, it is something that needs to be said and I say it here for all those interested. I have no problem with anyone linking this article to the original site. I will quote the original comment first, then my reply.
On October 25, 2009, Julio said: “Americans who rant and rave against “socialism” obviously want to give up their local and state police departments, their fire departments, their public schools, their state colleges, their libraries, the US armed forces, medicaid, medicare, social security, their state and interstate highway system, the US Postal System, federal law enforcement agencies, unemployment checks and food stamps, and many other beneficial institutions and agencies.”
Yes, Julio. I would like to give up most of the things on your list. I would like to give up all of those items that the Constitution does not give authority for. Now I am talking at the Federal level. Local and state police departments and fire departments should be just that, local and state. That means with no help from the Federal government. Help always comes with strings and strings always mean controls. No help, no interference and no controls.
Personally, I would prefer no public schools at all. However, that is a topic for another session. I will point out that the words “education”, “school”, “university”, and “learn”, do not appear in the Constitution. “College” does appear but only in reference to the Electoral College. My state (Indiana) constitution does promise education. I don’t agree, but at least it is legal at the state level.
I am not aware of any Federal involvement in libraries except the Library of Congress. I suspect many libraries get Federal grants. That is unconstitutional, therefore it is wrong.
The Constitution allows for a navy. It also allows for an army but limits army funding to a two year period. The Founders had a reason for this: They knew, first hand, the potential terror of a standing army. Both the navy and the army were meant for DEFENSIVE purposes, not for empire building. The wrong use of the military is also a topic for another session.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Yes, they should all be eliminated. Medicare and Medicaid are major factors in the health care crisis we now face. All three are major factors in the financial crisis the country now faces. When I was in my early twenties I espoused the idea of eliminating Social Security. I never felt those who had paid into it should be left out in the cold. Those already receiving benefits should continue to receive the return on their payments as promised. Those who had paid in for a significant amount of time (but were not yet collecting SS) should receive a pro-rated amount when the time came for them to collect. In the mean time, the money should no longer be taken from the workers (or their employers). The balance of the payments should come from general taxes until SS is totally phased out.
The Constitution allows the Federal government to ESTABLISH both post offices and postal roads. Nothing about maintaining them in perpetuity. Nor should we have any Interstate system set up and funded by the Federal government. The states could decide on where the road between city a in state A and city b in state B could meet so it would be easy to get from one city to another. Then the states could build them (if their state constitutions allowed).
There are very few laws that fall into Federal jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcement. Treason and counterfeiting come to mind. So I suspect a single Federal law enforcement agency should suffice. Most of the Federal agencies with enforcement powers are enforcing unconstitutional laws.
As for unemployment checks and food stamps, I cannot support government charity at any level above the township level. By that I mean the Federal and state governments should not provide handouts to people, corporations or other entities. If a person falls on hard times and cannot find needed private charity from family, friends, churches, or fraternal organizations, then he or she should be able to go to the township for help. This should be the last resort. When the help comes from a higher government level, much of the money available will be lost in the bureaucracy leaving less for its intended purpose. Also, when the help comes from a very local source, it is harder for the lazy good-for-nothing types to game the system. Those who truly have problems will get the help they need, those who won’t try to help themselves will only get it a time or two. Corporations should NEVER get charity from ANY government.
That leaves “many other beneficial institutions and agencies”. Show me what institutions and agencies you are talking about and I’ll show you institutions and agencies that benefit some at the expense of others. And I’ll bet the US Constitution will not support them.
Now for some more general thoughts. True Capitalism has not been in use for a very long time in this country (or anywhere else that I know of). We have had government controls with laws passed to benefit the large corporations at the expense of the small competitors. It is not more regulation on capitalism that is needed. Such regulations makes it difficult for new and/or small companies to enter a market. Take barbers for example. Yes, so far as I know, at present there are no Federal license requirements or regulations for barbers. But there are state and sometimes local requirements. If I can find a barber who does what I want for a fee I’m willing to pay, I don’t care if they have a government approval or not. If they do a bad job, they will lose me as a client and I’ll advise my family and friends to stay away. If they do a good job, I’ll come back. If they do an excellent job I’ll not only come back, but I’ll recommend them to my family and friends.
It always comes back to the Constitution. If the Constitution does not specifically allow it, it cannot be done at the Federal level. As far as lower government levels are concerned, if some states (or cities) are more socialistic and others are less so, let the people vote at the ballot box. If they are not satisfied with the results they can vote with their feet. Of course the states, counties and cities must still protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of these united States – including the Bill of Rights.
This article was originally written as a response to many comments on the subject of term limits at Tea Party Patriots. The URL for this is: http://www.contractfromamerica.org/IdeaDetail.aspx?ideaid=776425d7-2493-4f80-9157-006ba256deda . This was posted here on October 13, 2009, at about 10:00 pm (EDT) in case you want to see where it fits in the original discussion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to comment right here or to go to the above link and comment. Or do both.
Now, as I was going to post at Tea Party Patriots:
Much of what is in the comment you are now reading has been written below in other comments. This is sort of a summary of it all based on my opinions. You will find some variations of what you read earlier.
Because of the limited powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution, the founding fathers thought there would be little for Congress to do. Therefore, they placed a requirement for it to meet at least once a year (Article I, Section 4) Note: it says “AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR”. The wise men who wrote the Constitution were afraid the congressmen would not bother to come to the capital even that often.
The State Constitution for the New Hampshire states that compensation for the two year term of Representative is $200. That is only $100 per year and it takes an amendment to change it. I like that concept and would like to see in at the federal level. If fact, I would like to see it for ALL elected posts in the country.
If pay and benefits were low enough, our elected officials would not want to be career politicians. If they were required to stay within the bounds of the US Constitution, boredom alone would keep them from running again.
The framers of the Constitution of these united States expected normal farmers and businessmen to run for office and serve a single term. Then, it was expected they would go back living the life they had prior to serving.
Term limits are a good idea. But I would also like to see less incentive for politicians to even want to make serving a career.
My idea would be to limit any person from holding any government position (elected, appointed, or just plain hired), or series of positions, for more than a total of 12 years. I would allow them to rerun after a break from all government service (bureaucrat or elected position or just a clerk in a government office) for a time period equal or greater then the length of their last ‘run’ of government service.
Government servants (at any level) should not receive any pensions or any other incentives other than a basic salary.
Many, here, have spoken of elections being built in term limits. That is the way it should be but it does not work. If you and I vote out our incumbents because we believe in term limits, the people in the next state may not do so. Their incumbents will grab all the power and ours will be powerless. Also, if a senator is instrumental in bringing a factory to his state, his constituency will think he should stay there forever. In the meantime, with his power he may well be passing bills that will hurt the republic. And, remember, if he used his power to bring that factory to your state, he probably did it at the expense of the rest of the nation.
The constitution states we are to have one representative in the house for each 30,000 citizens. This, by the way, is the ONLY reason for the census to be done every ten years. To count heads, not to get demographics. But I digress. To follow the constitution we should have approximately 10,000 representatives in the house. A bigger building would be needed, but Madison Square Garden holds twice that many and we have sports stadiums even larger than MSG. The big advantage to this would be that the Representative would be closer to his constituents. Also, elections would cost less which would give less opportunity for the election to be bought or for contributors to buy the Representative.
Personally, I think the states should pay the salary of their Representatives and Senators. As hinted at above, the salary should not be large and benefits (which should be few and small) should terminate with the term of office. Pensions should not come with any job, people should save and invest a portion of their income for their retirement. Health care should also not be an employment benefit. The fact that it has become one is partially responsible for the health care crisis we now have. Oops! Strayed again.
We should repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the state legislators choosing the senators for that state. They would then be more loyal to the state and less likely to follow the president or house when bills are presented that would hurt their state. Most of the states are too large for the people to know their Senators.
If we force our elected servants to follow the Constitution, we will have a lot less bureaucracies and a lot less bureaucrats and less government jobs. Remember, federal government jobs (with a few exceptions) are non-productive. As a result, we are paying a salary just to let someone tell us what we can or cannot do. The primary exceptions are military and post office. The post office, although allowed for in the Constitution, is not required by the Constitution. I think it should be dissolved and let private enterprise take over. The military should be for DEFENSE ONLY. Then it would be much smaller and need a much smaller budget.
It has been argued that our politicians would get more done if they have longer terms. Frankly, considering what they do I consider it good when they don’t do much at all. That means they are not finding new projects to tax us for, not finding new taxes for us to pay, and not finding new ways to take away our liberties. That kind of non-production is good.
One last point. Someone suggested we should outlaw advertising for elections. This would mean the bulk of the information the public receives would come from the press. The press can be VERY one sided and it won’t always be on your side.
Here are some examples of government not working. If you would like details on why government programs fail, read Why Government Doesn’t Work by Harry Browne, (St. Martin’s Press – 1995).
Agriculture:
Farm subsidies for grains, tobacco, etc. are always set up to benefit the large farms at the expense of the family farmer. FTC and FDA regulations are also harmful to the family farmer as well as to any farm that is truly trying to produce healthy products such as non-GMO, pesticide free, and herbicide free foods.
Amtrak:
In 1971 the government took over most long distance passenger rail service in the USA. It is virtually without competition yet it needs to be subsidized. If it were very cheap there would be better arguments for it, but often you can fly from point A to point B for less than the Amtrak fare.
Education:
Since the federal government got deeply involved in education America’s students have consistently failed to keep up with students of other developed countries. Once we were tops in math and science. No longer is this true. A large per cent of high school graduates cannot do 8th grade math and/or cannot communicate effectively and intelligently. Many cannot read above an 8th grade level.
Drugs:
Since the federal war on drugs began, drug use has increased. Drug related crime has increased. Just like prohibition, the war on drugs has caused a rise in gangs (mobs) and an increase in violent crime. Although wrong, prohibition was constitutionally legal due to the 18th amendment (which was wisely repealed with the 21st amendment) – the drug war is not legal.
Health Care:
Medicare and Medicaid were instituted to take care of the health issues of the elderly and indigent. If it is so good, why has the current administration proposed a new multi-trillion dollar health plan? It must be a wonderful plan. Why else would the administration push so hard for it?
Government regulations make it hard for a patient to find natural medical care. The AMA (with the governments blessing) controls the medical schools and the medical industry. They (the AMA and government — FDA & FTC) are in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. Thus it has been decreed that no claims may be made for the health benefits of any natural product unless the FTC decides adequate testing has been done. This, even though the benefits of these natural fruits, vegetables, herbs, etc. have been known for centuries.
Military:
We keep getting into wars we can’t win and won’t get out of.
Money:
I am thinking of the bailouts of the past year. Reports come over the media daily about how we are pulling out of the recession. Still, more and more people are losing their jobs only to find jobs that are lower paying – or no job at all. Will the bailouts prevent a depression? I doubt it. Only time will tell. The Cash for Clunkers program did not help the American auto makers as much as it did those from Japan and Korea.
Poverty:
The Johnson administration declared war on poverty. How’s that working out? More and more people are living below the poverty level every year.
Post Office:
The post office has a monopoly on first class letters. In spite of the monopoly it loses money every year.
Social Security:
This plan was going to be called Social Welfare but the name was changed to Social Security. Those in power at the time realized the people of this country would not stand for such a (welfare) program. It is claimed that the intent was never to be a sole retirement plan, but a supplement. This may be true, but when the government takes over 12% of your income, for such a program, it makes it difficult to have anything to save. I know, your pay stub shows only 6.2% being deducted but your employer pays another 6.2% in your name. This is money that could be available to add to your paycheck if the employer did not have to pay it to Uncle Sam. Besides this, it costs the company money to process these transactions in a fashion that suits the government.
Unemployment:
Government programs and tax breaks were instrumental in sending huge numbers of US manufacturing companies overseas to China (and elsewhere) to open plants there and to close plants in the US. Jobs lost that will likely never be regained!
Once a government program is instituted, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. Even if the legislation creating the program has a sunset clause, it is never allowed to die. It is in the best interest of the operators of the program to continue it and make it grow – job security! And if it is failing, well that is because it needs more funding!
It is worth noting that of all the areas listed above, only the post office and the military are even permitted by the constitution. Your government officials, from the president on down, all take an oath to support that very document. You can see how seriously they take that responsibility. A note on the military: the constitution allows for an army and a permanent navy. It was never intended the army be permanent. The constitution prohibits funding it for longer than a two year period.
More Government Won’t Work
Better.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
When was the last time you stood up, placed your hand over your heart (or saluted, military style) and recited the above pledge?
Government schools start the day with the pledge (as well as many school events).
Many sporting events start with the pledge.
Court sessions may start with the pledge.
Congressional sessions open with the pledge.
Local government meetings – city and county council, planning commission, etc. – usually start with the pledge.
Political meetings often start with the pledge.
Why do we do this and what does it mean? In fact, where did the pledge of allegiance come from? Let’s start with a little history of the pledge.
Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. Bellamy was the cousin of author Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy wrote a best selling book titled Looking Backward from 2000 to 1887 which was published in 1888. Looking Backward was published in every major language of the day. It is the story of Julian West, a man who wakes up in the year 2000 from a hypnotic trance (he was in the trance since 1887) to find himself in a socialist society – a military socialist government. Edward Bellamy considered this a utopian society. Edward and his writings influenced his cousin who agreed that a military socialist government would be a better world then the ‘inequities’ of a country with freedom and liberty at its root.
Both of the Bellamys felt that the government should run the schools. This is something that was starting to happen. Schools were not and are not a part of the federal government’s responsibility. Neither schools nor education are even mentioned in the Constitution. However, some (probably most) of the state constitutions take on the responsibility of providing education for the children of said state. But that is another topic.
Francis Bellamy was involved in the October 12, 1892, Columbus Day celebration, This was the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America. James Upham was an employee of a Boston publishing firm which published “The Youth’s Companion” magazine. Upham’s uncle, Daniel Ford, was the owner and editor. This was one of the most widely distributed magazines of the era. It was in this magazine that the Pledge of Allegiance was first printed (on September 8, 1892). Ford claimed that Upham (and the staff of the magazine) wrote the pledge while Francis Bellamy claimed credit for it. I have found no proof to back either side, however, my inclination is to believe Bellamy was the author of the pledge.
Author or not, Bellamy promoted that the pledge should be recited in schools every morning. “The Youth’s Companion” agreed with the concept and also promoted it. It was first recited in schools on October 12 for the Columbus Day celebration. It then became a daily ritual in the schools throughout the country. Bellamy, being the socialist that he was, wanted the children to pledge allegiance to the government (as represented by the flag). He wanted them to acquire a loyalty to the flag (thus also to the government) so it would be second nature for them to accept any and all edicts of the government without question. Read the rest of this entry »
The White House is concerned about viral emails which question the wisdom and policies of the legislation given the title of “America’s Affordable Health Choices of 2009″. Also known as ObamaCare. So, David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President, has sent his own viral email in response. Ok. That is fair enough. This email found its way to my computer and I have read it completely.
It consists of three groups of eight statements designed to rebut some of the statements made by in the emails the White House objects to. They are:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
8 common myths about health insurance reform
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
I have printed the entire email, including the three lists, below. It is printed in green. Nothing was left out (assuming I received the entire email – and I believe I did) except some minor graphics which did not add to or subtract from the discussion.
For each of the first and last sections, I have responded to each of the statements. My comments are in black. I chose not to comment on the myths section for reasons you will find at the beginning of that section. I will say this about the so called myths. I have seen lists of the concerns that should have appeared on this list but did not. Perhaps it is because they are not myths but provable facts.
Before we get to Mr. Axelrod’s viral email, let me talk about the subject in general.
Although it is not presented in this email, I have heard and read comments about how this reform is needed because the free market has failed. The failure comes in the fact that the insurance companies are making record profits and are just plain greedy. Well, they are in business to make a profit. All businesses are. The insurance companies have to answer to state insurance boards and have a lot of restrictions put on them. Some of those, no doubt, come from federal mandates, others are the brainwork of the state lawmakers. In either case, government interference is a major part of the problem.
Without government interference, I would be able to purchase an insurance policy from any company in any state. I would be able to take the same policy to any place where I might choose to move. State laws prevent this. This curtails competition. Curtailed competition reduces options and raises costs.
Regarding the business of excess profits and greed, I have a link for you to take a peek at: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html. This link is to a blog called “Carpe Diem” by Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan. Dr. Perry has a table (see above link) of Profit Margins by Industry. It shows “Health Care Plans” ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (included Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.). They would likely be even lower in the rankings if the limitations put out by state governments were removed and full competition were re-established. (Thanks to DownsizeDC.org for the link to Dr. Perry’s blog.)
“Accident and Health Insurance” is # 73 at 3.8%. Still not exactly high on the list. Consider that “Drugs – Generic” is #45 (6.6%), “Medical Instruments and Supplies” is #41 (6.8%), “Medical Laboratories and Research” is #32 (8.2%), “Healthcare Information Services” is #24 (9.3%), “Drug Delivery” is #14 (13.5%), “Drug Manufacturers – Major” is #7 (16.5%), and “REIT – Healthcare Facilities” is #3 (24.6%). So you see, plenty of health related fields are doing much better than the insurance companies.
In case you are wondering, I do not now and never have worked for an insurance company or agent. To the best of my knowledge no relative of mine does or ever has either. Read the rest of this entry »
You’ve heard the saying “My party, right or wrong!” Or maybe “My country, right or wrong!” “My (fill in the blank), right or wrong!”
The implication here is complete loyalty and allegiance to the entity spoken of. When is such allegiance justified? It might just depend on how you fill in the blank. Or maybe not.
If I were to become a member of a political party, I would likely feel the need to say, “My party, right or wrong!” Since political parties are comprised of people, it is quite likely that at some time I would have the feeling that my party was wrong. After all, people are not perfect. When that happened, I would have to either abandon my ‘promise’ or abandon my party.
Not everyone would take this view. All political parties tend to drift over a period of time. Sometimes the drifting is in a direction a given member considers wrong. I know a little bit about this regarding two political parties: Republican and Libertarian.
At one time the Republican Party was the party of laissez-faire capitalism. Now it supports corporatism. Corporatism has done nothing good for the United States. It’s done a lot for certain corporations, but nothing good for the citizens in general. It has helped drive manufacturing overseas. It has been a major factor in our getting into wars. It has hurt the average American while lining the pockets of politicians and the top brass of some corporations.
The Libertarian Party has always been one that many people find difficult to accept. Most of us seem to believe that we NEED the government to do certain things for us. Things like take care of our medical expenses, provide for our education, and pay our way when we retire.
Others will say, “No, I can pay my own way.” But they can’t accept the Libertarian stance on some other issue such as: gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc. Often a person will feel so strong about one specific issue that they will join a party based solely on that specific issue. Or leave a party based solely on that issue. I must confess to being a one issue person. My issue is the United States Constitution. If a bill does not conform to the constitution I expect my servants to vote NO.
Although I have been a small ‘l’ libertarian for some time now, I have only a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the Libertarian Party. It has been brought to my attention that they ran Bob Barr for the presidency in 2008 because they wanted to get a more significant showing at the polls. As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Barr voted the wrong way too often on some important issues. Too many times his vote was against the constitution.
Although I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party, I did sort of consider it my party. But not “My party, right or wrong!” They were wrong (IMHO) – so I could not vote Libertarian for the presidential office. Read the rest of this entry »
On April 15, 2009, there were hundreds of Tea Parties across this nation. Some sources say over two thousand. These were in the tradition of the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773. The general intent, in both cases, was to let the government know we had a problem involving the tax system. So why did you go to the Tea Party?
If you answered, “To get some tea.” I shall assume you are jesting. Anybody who is reading a political blog knows that the tea was not for drinking.
If you are a Republican you might have gone to let the Obama administration know we are tired of the government spending us into debt.
If you are an Obama supporter you might have gone to counter the Republicans objections to the current administration. Your argument was probably something about how the Republicans are complaining now, but did not seem to mind when Bush was doing the same things. And you would be right. Most of the Republicans had little or no objection when it was Bush giving away billions and billions of dollars. But now that the Democrats are running the show, it is a different story.
We are in a downhill slide heading toward an abyss.
In fairness to the Republicans, Bush may have started it but Obama has upped it to a grand scale. This applies specifically to the bailouts. Other ways that the government is spending our money have been done by the Republicans also. For instance: Education — it was Bush who gave us ‘No Child Left Behind.’ And Health – it was Bush who gave us the prescription drug plan for medicare. Two areas where there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to meddle.
As for undeclared and unauthorized war in the Middle East – Bush started it and Obama is continuing it – there is no end in sight. Remember: the attacks of 9/11 were done by individuals – not countries. Not much change there!
There are some who attended one of the tea parties who are neither Republicans nor Democrats. Include me in that group. But some of these chose not to attend a tea party because it was perceived to be a Republican show created just to holler out to (and against) the Democrats. They were not wrong to stay away. Nor would they have been wrong to attend. I did attend.
I wanted to let the government (no matter who is in power) know that “enough is enough.” The national debt is skyrocketing to heights undreamed of by previous administrations. But have no doubt about it – it did not start with Obama. And it won’t end with this administration.
The last time the national debt went down was in Eisenhower’s administration. No matter who was in the white house, no matter who controlled congress, the debt has risen EVERY YEAR since 1957. Check for yourself at the US Treasury:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
So what should be done? If both parties are doing the same thing, how do we get around it? There are a lot of ideas out there on possible solutions. I have quite a few myself. I do not claim any of them to be original ideas from my brain. Nor am I going to try to list them all here. There are way too many.
There is one idea that stands above all the rest. I hinted at it in the sixth paragraph. By itself, it would solve virtually all of the problems our government has. That idea is to make government follow the Constitution of the United States. Of course this is easier to say than to do.
Our part is to make sure our senators and representatives hear about it whenever they pass (or are about to pass) a law that the Constitution does not allow for. NO EXCEPTIONS! If you make exceptions for what you think the Constitution does not address properly, that will give those who think differently the justification to make exceptions for what they think the Constitution does not address properly.
Next, vote them out if they keep doing it. Don’t just vote in the candidate from the opposing party in the so called two party system. Look at the record of whomever you are considering. If their record shows they truly support the Constitution (not just lip service), reward them with your vote.
The Constitution clearly outlines what the Federal Government IS ALLOWED to do. Anything else is prohibited. Let me repeat that: ANYTHING ELSE IS PROHIBITED!
Some people complain that if we don’t have the government doing all the things that they now do, then people will not be able to survive. Important things would not get done. But government does not know how to do things well. By its very nature it will NOT do things well. Nobody in government is held responsible when the government programs go wrong. People will always be able to do almost anything better for themselves than the government can do it for them.
The Constitution is not perfect. If you are worried about the things you feel the Constitution does not allow for (but should), remember, we have an amendment system which is to be used for making corrections. It is slow, but that is good, because it prevents us from making rash decisions based on the emotions of a given time period. Emotions which may come from a single and unique event.
The late Harry Browne was once asked just how small government should be. He said, “Small enough to fit within the Constitution.” And I agree. If you want to know why it is a good idea to limit government to the roles permitted by the Constitution, read Browne’s book Why Government Doesn’t Work.
If you want to work at helping get government smaller, join Downsize DC. Go to www.downsizedc.org and join up.
If we can keep government within the Constitution, there will be no need for tax day Tea Parties. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?