Archive for category Statism
Today’s Nonclassical Liberalism….against the American grain!
Posted by Tom in Democrats, Individual Freedom, Liberalism, National Character, Statism on December 4, 2010
Emmett Tyrrell pens an interesting analysis of today’s left in the weekend WSJ, Liberalism: An Autopsy. American voters who identify themselves as liberals are down to 20% of the electorate while those identifying themselves as conservatives are 42% and the powerful independents who swung right in the last election are 29%. What happened to the so-called liberals?
Tyrrell traces their decline from JFK forward. He put us on the path to big government and his successor LBJ dramatically expanded that path. So while JFKs by executive order legitimized public employee unions, Johnson gave us the Great Society with legislation in education, voter rights, poverty, medicare and medicaid. Kennedy threw open the floodgates of public unionism and its incestuous alliance with politicians. Johnson showed us how big and bankrupting government can be with its bankrupting parasitical Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Granted the expansion of the leftist progressive thinking started much earlier, reached a plateau with FDR. But Truman’s and Ike’s return to normalcy provided only a brief respite. The size, the power, the intrusiveness of big government was shown with Johnson’s Great Society. As implied from the moniker the Great Society demanded a Small Individual with less freedom and consequently less potential.
Tyrrell makes an excellent point that “conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures.” Sadly the liberals search in vain for their cynosures, denied them, save perhaps the British Fabian Socialists or Karl Marx, they lack intellectual mentors.
The vile overreach of big government was shown in the person of Obama who with Reid and Pelosi engaged in the stimulus-Obamacare, generation choking spending orgy. They steal from our grandchildren:
“Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.”
“As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans’ 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future.”
Tyrrell generously concludes with, “Liberalism R.I.P.” I only hope he is not premature in his assessment!
Let’s Return to Federalism
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Constitution, Federalism, Individual Freedom, National Character, National Debt, Statism on November 10, 2010
Too much power resides in Washington and too little with the States. The farther away power gets from the people, the more dangerous it is to the common good, the more intrusive it is to our freedom and independence, and the more costly it is, now to our great grandchildren!
The Constitution as originally established understandably reflected the founders fear of highly centralized national power. It created a federal republic. Recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous response, “We’ve given you a Republic, if you can keep it.” That republic was a marvelous structure of checks and balances on power, on centralized power.
Who was beholden to whom for the office held was wonderfully allocated to various constituencies. The executive was elected by an electoral college and had a four year term. The legislature of the people, the House, was elected directly by the people and based upon population. The analogy here was the House of Commons. And the people would express their control and sentiments most frequently, every two years. The Senators, only two from each state, were elected by the state legislatures and had terms of six years. The analogy here was the House of Lords. Finally the judiciary, then the Supreme Court, was appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate and served for life.
This worked as structured, as a federal government, with local and state responsibility and control for years. The principle of “subsidiarity,” that needs would be best served at the lowest level of society, was in full force and flourished. Under this principle, the family, the social organization, the church, the local authority, etc. could all do things more effectively than the federal government miles away. States, counties, municipalities all had real responsibility and provided for the local needs much better than could be done by some distant government.
This worked in fact until the so-called progressives said that it didn’t work. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1913. It provided for the direct election of Senators, rather than the election by state legislatures as set out in Article 1, Section 3.
Since that time we have witnessed ever increasing federal power and ever declining local power. We have seen control of local responsibility for important programs like education eroded. We have seen unfunded mandates levied upon the states and localities, like Medicaid. We have seen concentrated national unions influence the election of Senators. And we have now seen an out of control federal budget with unsustainable levels of debt that will subject our grandchildren to servitude.
There is an embryonic movement afoot to repeal the 17th Amendment. It is very much worth serious consideration. Todd Zywicki has an excellent post on NRO today, Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. It’s well reasoned and persuasive.
From my perspective, we need to promote more individual and local responsibility and power and less in Washington DC. A repeal of the 17th Amendment would go a long way to doing so. It would likewise go a long way to starving the beast.
Election 2010…Read the Tea Leaves (no pun intended!)
What happens in 2012 as far as the Democratic Senators are concerned? These solons are smart politicians. They look at the Republican tsunami in the House, the state houses, the governor elections and they conclude that the electorate has rejected the Obama-Pelosi-Reid leftist socialism. They see that the public is tired of big, intrusive government, generation choking deficits, and concomitant bankrupting debt.
Several of these Democratic senators are up for reelection two years hence in 2012. And several of those want to be returned to the Senate at that time. QED, they start to move to the center. Just as the 2010 Democrats distanced themselves from Obamacare, so will these “greedy” (for power!) Democrats.
Republican House leadership proposes and pases legislation designed to reduce the deficit, limit intrusive regulation, or repeal Obamacare. It’s sent to the Senate. Time to vote. Who among them wants to be on what side of the very sharp and heavy guillotine? With 2012 elections in ever larger view on the horizon, I submit that more than a few will vote with the increased Republican minority. Of course, I rely on my sense of human nature and greed for power.
Well then, who is up for reelection or retirement in 2012? As we know Senators have six year terms with about a third of the body turning over every two years. Makes for continuity in office. Isn’t that wonderful! According to Wickepedia, and who can quarrel with that, this is what’s up: 33 Senators are up for reelection, 2 independents, 10 Republicans, AND 21 DEMOCRATS! The details below:
| State | Incumbent | Party | State | Incumbent | Party |
| Arizona | Jon Kyl | Republican | New Jersey | Bob Menendez | Democratic |
| California | Dianne Feinstein | Democratic | New Mexico | Jeff Bingaman | Democratic |
| Connecticut | Joe Lieberman | Independent Democrat | New York | Kirsten Gillibrand | Democratic |
| Delaware | Tom Carper | Democratic | North Dakota | Kent Conrad | Democratic |
| Florida | Bill Nelson | Democratic | Ohio | Sherrod Brown | Democratic |
| Hawaii | Daniel Akaka | Democratic | Pennsylvania | Bob Casey, Jr. | Democratic |
| Indiana | Richard Lugar | Republican | Rhode Island | Sheldon Whitehouse | Democratic |
| Maine | Olympia Snowe | Republican | Tennessee | Bob Corker | Republican |
| Maryland | Ben Cardin | Democratic | Texas | Kay Bailey Hutchison | Republican |
| Massachusetts | Scott Brown | Republican | Utah | Orrin Hatch | Republican |
| Michigan | Debbie Stabenow | Democratic | Vermont | Bernie Sanders | Independent |
| Minnesota | Amy Klobuchar | Democratic | Virginia | Jim Webb | Democratic |
| Mississippi | Roger Wicker | Republican | Washington | Maria Cantwell | Democratic |
| Missouri | Claire McCaskill | Democratic | West Virginia | Joe Manchin III | Democratic |
| Montana | Jon Tester | Democratic | Wisconsin | Herb Kohl | Democratic |
| Nebraska | Ben Nelson | Democratic | Wyoming | John Barrasso | Republican |
| Nevada | John Ensign | Republican | |||
Here’s a little guessing game for you: pick the top ten Democratic Senators to be the first to switch and side with the Republicans when that critical vote comes around?
And just for fun, assuming enough of them switch to pass the Republican bill, how quickly will Hussein Obama step up to the guillotine with a veto?
Boy, I thought the next two years would be a guerilla-war-like stalemate. Given the new Republican dominance in the state legislatures and the upcoming redistricting, I’m now beginning to think it will be quite interesting! KEEP SMILING!
Temper Your Expectations for the Next Two Years
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Economics, Employment, Government Regulation, Statism on October 29, 2010
One of the greatest restraints on economic growth is uncertainty. Business investment, the generator of growth and job creation, is risky even in the best of times. Uncertain times greatly increase the risk and often kill the decisions to invest, thus killing growth potential and job creation.
Obama and his leftist Congress with Pelosi and Reid in charge has added more uncertainty to the economy than any government in recent memory. Healthcare, financial regulation, cap and trade, tax policy and general expansion of government have added to the uncertainty. What direction will the legislation take, the regulations thereunder, the bureaucrats that make specific decisions pursuant to those regulations? And how will all of those affect my business investment?
Whether its consumer financial rule making, the EPA’s administrative imposition of emission limits on CO2, the health tzar’s specification of one-size-fits-all insurance policies, uncertainty abounds! Business will continue to stall and job creation will stall with it.
Charles Krauthammer in yesterday’s Washington Post op-ed, The great campaign of 2010, rightly predicts political paralysis if Republicans as predicted take the House and possibly the Senate. They can pass but Obama can veto. That means no repeal of Obamacare, nor of anything else for that matter.
Thus, center stage will be owned by the bureaucrats. By people like Kathleen Sebelius with Obamacare, Elizabeth Warren at the consumer financial protection bureau and Lisa Jackson at the EPA. These people can do real damage with or without legislation already on the books. Uncertainty will grow geometrically!
And costs to existing businesses will grow dramatically creating a further drag on the economy. For example, mid size real estate investment management companies will now be regulated by the SEC complements of Barney Frank’s financial regulation legislation. One company I know will be forced to spend $500,000 to set up the compliance accounting and controls, will be required to hire a compliance officer, will have all company emails for a running six year period scrutinized by the SEC and will require all principals and officers to have their home emails inspected for business content. Now this firm does not deal with the public, has no individual investors, and is owned by the individual partners. It deals in commercial and industrial real estate investments and invest for and advises major institutions. Not only will its costs go up but its business time will be diverted by this unnecessary compliance. Regulation for the sake of regulation keeps the bureaucrats in business.
In many respects this is the worst of all worlds. Political paralysis can be good, but not with bureaucratic uncertainty in full force. Lawless, unelected people with leftists agendas will govern unchecked. Regulation will be over done for the benefit of the regulators and little else. Remedies are limited and slow: court processes take years and further add to uncertainty. Impeachment for misconduct is rarely called for and more rarely used.
So the next two years will be a period of resistance on low-level, one-off battles and economic stagnation. We can take consolation in the fact that the bleeding from Obama’s more aggressive agenda will stop. And we can look forward to November 2012 for repudiation of his leftist, statist governance.
Meantime, KEEP SMILING!
Slow Treck Toward Socialism…The NPR Example
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Constitution, Government Regulation, Statism on October 24, 2010
Seth Lipsky’s WSJ piece, The Real Case for Defunding NPR, argues that government subsidy “casts a chill over markets in which entrepreneurs seek to raise capital for highbrow journalism.” He cites his own difficulty in raising money for independent journalism when the investor asks, “isn’t this already being done by public broadcasting?” There goes the investor, no market when similar programming is already being funded by the government.
It is a stretch to say that NPR is “being funded” by the government when only 1-3% of its budget comes from the taxpayers. But the other donations from foundations and subscribers are often tax deductible, so maybe that is not too big a stretch.
The simple point is that any taxpayer subsidy is an unnecessary use of public money. Government does not belong in the business of business. At least, not in a free, capitalistic market.
Of course this runs counter to the recent call for more taxpayer money to be poured into the losing media businesses:
“A small chorus is tuning up to demand not that the government get out of the way but that it actually step up its funding of the press. Last year a report—written by a former editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downey, and issued under the auspices of the Columbia Journalism School—called for siphoning funds from the Federal Communications Commission’s surcharge on phone bills into a Fund for Local News that would underwrite “worthy initiatives in local news reporting.”
“The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, has emerged as a leading voice for pouring more government money into news gathering. How badly would that chill the capital markets for those who dream of privately funded news gathering, completely independent of oversight by Congress?”
Don’t forget the Communists methodology was to first control the media and educational systems. This a logical takeover of society. Given the unfettered liberalism of our schools and universities and the obvious liberalism of the main stream media, we are well on our way to the leftist, socialistic, communistic takeover. Pick one.
So to Lipsky’s point, government interference in a marketplace, any marketplace, chills independent investment. This for a logical reason, how can private capital compete with the entity that prints the money! That chilling appears to be the goal of the leftists, witness the government ownership of and detailed interference in major private industries.
Simply put, investment in businesses is not a proper role for government. Constitutionally, it is ultra vires, that is legally beyond the legitimate power of government.
Two Perspectives on Leftists
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Democrats, Politics, Statism on October 24, 2010
P.J O’Rourke is at the top of his game today in his Weekly Standard piece, They Hate Our Guts…and they’re drunk on power. In it he posits a unifying theory on Democratic behavior; after opening with analogy contrasting a few cockeyed (tea-party) muts running the dog pound with Michael VicK, he blast away:
“I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
“They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.”
He goes on with a litany of hates, other Democrats, success, productivity, stay-at-home spouses,and the military to name a few. And all this hate for a love, obsessive love, of power. No professed high-minded ideals, just raw power. Power that keeps the masses uneducated and suppressed, complements of brokers like the teachers unions.
Charles Murray takes a different tack in his Washington Post article, The tea party warns of a New Elite. They’re right.” In well-researched, well-reasoned fashion he demonstrates that the “elites” are indeed different from the rest of us. “What sets the tea party apart from other observers of the New Elite is its hostility, rooted in the charge that elites are isolated from mainstream America and ignorant about the lives of ordinary Americans.”
Murray goes on to show that the elites by and large have attended prestigious schools, come from comparable social economic circumstances, associate with other elites, intermarry with other elites, work in prestigious jobs, and live in the same costal areas. “With geographical clustering goes cultural clustering.” In effect elites beget elites and are separate from the rest of us.
“There so many quintessentially American things that few members of the New Elite have experienced. They probably haven’t ever attended a meeting of a Kiwanis Club or Rotary Club, or lived for at least a year in a small town (college doesn’t count) or in an urban neighborhood in which most of their neighbors did not have college degrees (gentrifying neighborhoods don’t count). They are unlikely to have spent at least a year with a family income less than twice the poverty line (graduate school doesn’t count) or to have a close friend who is an evangelical Christian. They are unlikely to have even visited a factory floor, let alone worked on one.”
O’Rourke concludes with a throw-the-bums-out cry calling this election a restraining order to end the power that has been “trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats.” Murray concludes observing that the new elite includes far too many people who have influence on the course of the nation. “They are merely isolated and ignorant…(and they) may love America, but, increasingly, they are not of it.”
Both O’Rourke and Murray have valid perspectives. Each of those perspectives call for a complete house cleaning in November 2010 and November 2012.
Never Never Land…Compliments of the Leftists
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Democrats, Free Speech, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character, Statism on October 22, 2010
It was hard for me to restrain myself in reading a Fox News item detailing a Civil Rights violation against a Michigan woman for posting an ad at her church seeking a Christian roommate.
“The ad “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. ”It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”
Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.
Apparently these leftists do not believe in the Frist Amendment applicable to the states via the Fourteenth. It would do them well to remember it:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This Hanyes woman is admittedly not the brightest bulb on the tree, as she states the obvious: “If you read it (the ad) and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?” YEAH! HOW ABOUT THAT!
Under these Democratic leftists we have come to the point in our history where Civil Rights are more often than not CIVIL WRONGS. As this case illustrates, we have not only abandoned our founding principles but we have abandoned common snese.
Freedom vs. Statism
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government Regulation, Individual Freedom, National Character, Statism on October 1, 2010
Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) and the Republican Study Committee present this stark contrast between thinking independent Americans and the leftist progressives, the Democrats, who control our government and are leading us down the Road to Serfdom, step by step.
November 2010 and November 2012 can’t come soon enough!
One Dynamite Cartoon by John Trever
While aimed at Cuba, it portends the future for the United States.
Ever heard the expression, “the wheels are coming off?”
Constitution? He Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution!
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Constitution, Financial Policy, Government Regulation, Presidency, Statism on September 19, 2010
Our little dictator Hussein Obama really doesn’t want any “checks and balances” not even when his own party has complete control of them. Yep, Obama has appointed that darling of the left, Elizabeth Warren, “assistant to him and special advisor” to the Treasury Secretary with respect to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She will oversee all aspects of consumer protection including personnel and planning. The bureau has independent rule making authority and can grant itself an annual budget of up to $646 million from the operations of the Fed. No need of Congressional appropriations.
Instead of appointing her Director of the bureau which would have required the “advice and consent” of the Senate, he makes her a tzar answering to no one. She offices in the Treasury Department which has no authority over her. She will have “direct access” to the supreme dictator himself.
A WSJ editorial, Elizabeth III, pretty well sums up her power–and inferentially Comrade Obama’s power. No constitutionally required “advice and consent,” and no Congressional appropriations! Absolute rule making that can only be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the new Financial Stability Oversight Council.
The Constitutional requirements are pretty clear. Obama knows them. “On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both Houses stating that the “Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Yet he ignores them in the face of opposition from his own party. Democratic Senator Chris Dodd warned the president that she was not confirmable. Obama’s answer–take your Constitution and shove it!
This is so outrageous that even the liberal Washington Post editorial leads with “President Obama picks Elizabeth Warren…and thumbs his nose at the Senate.” It concludes, “for all intents and purposes, the president has created, and filled, a de facto directorship. This might have been in keeping with the letter of the laws, but not with their spirit.”
Now think for a minute the power this de facto dictator will have over fiance laws and regulations. It will cover not only banks but merchants extending credit. Think of the conflicts with banking regulations that are sure to occur. And finally, think of the business uncertainty compounded by the prospect of new regulations and new conflicts.
With the voracious trial lawyers waiting in the wings to sue banks and merchants for a misplaced comma or unbolded printing, expect a slow down in the extension of credit and a consequent slow down in credit dependent sales. Force these slow downs back through the chain of production and you have a general economic deterioration. All coming at a time that our recovery is very weak.
I can’t help but recall Tom Cargill’s chess match analogy: when the referee announced an impending rule change in the middle of the match, the players had little incentive to continue playing, so the match stopped! This is exactly what Team Obama is doing to our economy!