Is there any question?
Monday, June 22, 2009
The 545 People Responsible for all of the U.S. Woes
By Charley Reese
(Date of original publication unknown)
(Date of original publication unknown)
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Don’t you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.
O’neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
This article was first published by the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Why States' Rights?
It has been my observation over the years that few people truly understand why "States' Rights" were first instituted. Once that is understood it becomes a crucial principle, as opposed to just a concept that feels good because we tend prefer more local control.
Remember first the government that our founders and citizens had fled was enormous, and centrally controlled. These were the days of "The sun never sets on the British empire". They had witnessed, and suffered under, the corruption that ensued.
That said, we need not look much further than the name of our nation to understand what they were attempting to accomplish. The definition of the word "state" at that time was a sovereign government body. Noah Webster's 1828 edition defines it "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government." The premise under which this nation was formed, and named, is that we we would be individual sovereign governments forming a sort of Co-Op for specific purposes, such as common defense, commerce regulation, negotiating with foreign nations, etc. We were to be a group of sovereign states, united together for protective strength and position. (The electoral college is a fascinating tangent to this discussion. It creates a delicate balance in which it is the 'several states', not the people, that actually elect the president.) It's interesting to note that the term "States' rights" is actually a Civil War era creation, in response to the federal government expanding beyond its intended parameters. To our founders the concept was axiomatic.
The Constitution does not give rights to individuals. It gives very limited powers to the federal government with the presumption all others remained with the several states. The Bill of Rights was added later, only after intense debate. Proponents wanted to delineate some of our most important rights in order to protect them. Opponents feared that listing any rights would leave the impression that the list was all inclusive. The 10th amendment is the compromise between the two arguments.
Somewhere along the way most of our citizens lost track. Proposals made by elected federal officials began being debated on the merits of the idea, rather than on whether it is a legitimate federal function. As a result we now have, in practice, the type of government that our founders most feared. They foresaw that a powerful, centralized government would be a breeding ground for corruption.
I think time has proven them correct.
Remember first the government that our founders and citizens had fled was enormous, and centrally controlled. These were the days of "The sun never sets on the British empire". They had witnessed, and suffered under, the corruption that ensued.
That said, we need not look much further than the name of our nation to understand what they were attempting to accomplish. The definition of the word "state" at that time was a sovereign government body. Noah Webster's 1828 edition defines it "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government." The premise under which this nation was formed, and named, is that we we would be individual sovereign governments forming a sort of Co-Op for specific purposes, such as common defense, commerce regulation, negotiating with foreign nations, etc. We were to be a group of sovereign states, united together for protective strength and position. (The electoral college is a fascinating tangent to this discussion. It creates a delicate balance in which it is the 'several states', not the people, that actually elect the president.) It's interesting to note that the term "States' rights" is actually a Civil War era creation, in response to the federal government expanding beyond its intended parameters. To our founders the concept was axiomatic.
The Constitution does not give rights to individuals. It gives very limited powers to the federal government with the presumption all others remained with the several states. The Bill of Rights was added later, only after intense debate. Proponents wanted to delineate some of our most important rights in order to protect them. Opponents feared that listing any rights would leave the impression that the list was all inclusive. The 10th amendment is the compromise between the two arguments.
Somewhere along the way most of our citizens lost track. Proposals made by elected federal officials began being debated on the merits of the idea, rather than on whether it is a legitimate federal function. As a result we now have, in practice, the type of government that our founders most feared. They foresaw that a powerful, centralized government would be a breeding ground for corruption.
I think time has proven them correct.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The National Center for Constitutional Studies Information and Link
This link will be found permanently in our link list to the right but for convenience we'll post it here.
The National Center for Constitutional Studies
Product orders 800.388.4512
Seminar Information 480.832.6326
Email: etaylor@mstar.net
Interestingly, they have a book mark that listed the "28 Principles of Liberty" found in "The 5000 Year Leap". Wouldn't that be handy to carry around with your pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence?
The National Center for Constitutional Studies
Product orders 800.388.4512
Seminar Information 480.832.6326
Email: etaylor@mstar.net
Interestingly, they have a book mark that listed the "28 Principles of Liberty" found in "The 5000 Year Leap". Wouldn't that be handy to carry around with your pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence?
click on the image to enlarge
Monday, June 8, 2009
4th of July Plans?
Hopefully you haven't made plans yet because we'd like you to join us at the Gilbert Town Hall for a Tea Party. I'm not sure what it's official name is but I've seen East Valley Freedom Rally. We are not sure of all the details but we'll keep you updated with any new information. Here's the letter the organizer wrote to us:
I believe his email address is: eastvalleyralley@cox.net
We are planning on the 4th of July at Gilbert Town Hall – The main Theme is to educate people on why they are feeling the way they are about the government and what to do about it – how to make changes NOW! We will give the audience time to sound off too – just like last time. The entire event about 1 ½ hours.
It’s Independence Day!
It’s time to stop governmental abuse of our lives, liberty and our property.
See you and your group there on the 4th
Dave Petersen
I believe his email address is: eastvalleyralley@cox.net
Taking Back Our State
Submitted by Jarrod White.
[At the Book Club Meeting], one of the things we discussed was how to grab the ear of our State representatives and to turn their attention to State rights as described in the 10th of amendment of the Constitution. I spent a better part of the morning going over the activities of our representatives Warde Nichols and Steven Yarbrough.
I am happy to report that Warde Nichols cosponsored HCR2024.
This bill reasserts the limitations of the federal government as described in the 10th amendment. Further this bill passed the House Committee in April. The debate is interesting:
Forward this video clip to 21 minutes.
I am not sure how this bill moves along now as I am still learning. I think it goes to the floor for a full house vote and then goes the Senate. I am not sure what we can do to get behind this type of thing.
I was also looking at the volume of bills and resolutions going on right now (hundreds). It is mind-numbing. It is no wonder our government has grown so large…. Simplicity and common sense has escaped it.
[At the Book Club Meeting], one of the things we discussed was how to grab the ear of our State representatives and to turn their attention to State rights as described in the 10th of amendment of the Constitution. I spent a better part of the morning going over the activities of our representatives Warde Nichols and Steven Yarbrough.
I am happy to report that Warde Nichols cosponsored HCR2024.
This bill reasserts the limitations of the federal government as described in the 10th amendment. Further this bill passed the House Committee in April. The debate is interesting:
Forward this video clip to 21 minutes.
I am not sure how this bill moves along now as I am still learning. I think it goes to the floor for a full house vote and then goes the Senate. I am not sure what we can do to get behind this type of thing.
I was also looking at the volume of bills and resolutions going on right now (hundreds). It is mind-numbing. It is no wonder our government has grown so large…. Simplicity and common sense has escaped it.
VATs Mean Big Government
The evidence from Europe shows that consumption taxes go hand-in-hand with rising income taxes.
by Daniel J. Mitchell
This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on June 4, 2009.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at The Cato Institute and the co-author of Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It.
Added to cato.org on June 4, 2009
by Daniel J. Mitchell
This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on June 4, 2009.
There is growing interest in Washington in a new national consumption tax, otherwise known as a value-added tax or VAT. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), for example, recently told the Washington Post that "a VAT" has "got to be on the table" as part of "fundamental tax reform."
President Barack Obama is already looking at a wide range of other potential tax increases, including higher income tax rates, restrictions on itemized deductions, an energy tax, and higher payroll tax rates. Even if they all became law, the revenues would not come close to satisfying his and Congress's appetite for bigger government, particularly a government-run health-care scheme.
At the same time, our aging population and unconstrained entitlement programs mean that a dramatic expansion in the size of government will occur automatically in coming decades unless Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are reformed. Simply stated, there's no way to finance all this new spending without an additional, broad-based tax. That's exactly why a VAT -- which is like a national sales tax collected at each stage of the production process, rather than at the final point of sale -- should be resisted.
The classical argument in favor of a VAT says that it's desirable because it has a single rate and is based on consumption. It is true that single-rate systems (assuming a reasonable rate) are less harmful than discriminatory regimes with "progressive" rates. It's also true that a consumption-based tax would not inflict as much damage as our internal revenue code, with its multiple layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. But these arguments only apply if a VAT replaces the current tax system -- which is not the case here. And the evidence from Europe suggests it's not a good idea to add a somewhat-bad tax like the VAT on top of a really bad tax system.
VATs are associated with both higher overall tax burdens and more government spending. In 1965, before the VAT swept across Europe, the average tax burden for advanced European economies (the EU-15) was 27.7% of economic output, roughly comparable to the U.S., where taxes were 24.7% of GDP, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD). European nations began to impose VATs in the late 1960s, and now the European Union requires all members to have a VAT of at least 15%.
Results? By 2006, the OECD reports that the average tax burden for EU-15 nations had climbed to 39.8% of GDP. The tax burden also has increased in the U.S., but at a much slower rate, rising to 28% for that year.
The spending side of the fiscal equation is equally dismal. In 1965, according to European Commission figures, government spending in EU-15 nations averaged 30.1% of GDP, not much higher than the 28.3% of economic output consumed by U.S. government spending. According to 2007 data, government spending now consumes 47.1% of GDP in the EU-15, significantly higher than the 35.3% burden of government in the U.S.
Another argument for the VAT concedes it will increase the overall tax burden but preclude higher taxes on personal income and corporate income. The evidence from Europe says otherwise. Taxes on income and profits consumed 8.8% of GDP in Europe in 1965, giving Europe a competitive advantage over the U.S., where they consumed 11.9%. By 2006, OECD data show that the tax burden on income and profits climbed to 13.8% of GDP in Europe, slightly higher than the 13.5% figure for the U.S.
Last but not least, some protectionists in the business community and on Capitol Hill are attracted by the VAT because it is "border adjusted." This means that there is no VAT on exports, but the VAT is imposed on imports. For people who obsess about trade deficits this is seen as a positive feature. But they do not understand how a VAT works.
Under current law, American goods sold in America do not pay a VAT -- but neither do German-produced goods that are sold in the U.S. Likewise, any American-produced goods sold in Germany today are hit by a VAT, as are, of course, German-made goods. In short, there already is a level playing field.
The income tax system we have today is a nightmarish combination of class warfare and corrupt loopholes. Adding a VAT does not undo any of the damage it imposes. All that happens is that politicians get more money to spend and a chance to auction off a new set of tax breaks to interest groups. That's good for Washington, but bad for America.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at The Cato Institute and the co-author of Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It.
Added to cato.org on June 4, 2009
1st Book Club Meeting: A Success
Authored by Carol Scott.
Hey, the first meeting was a success! We had 13 attendees (two men, so know that you all are welcome!) with a robust discussion of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and plans for taking back this great country of ours, one principle at a time. Main ideas/areas of focus that came out of our discussion were:
1. Interest in Monica Shumway’s family lessons on the Constitution, from her mom. She will explore how to share these with us: FHEs, group discussion, etc.
2. Fostering interest in the tea party movement, especially for the 4th of July. Someone in Gilbert is planning one at the civic center. We all discussed attending with our families, and ways of encouraging others to attend as well. We feel that if the demonstrations continue to grow (hopefully exponentially in size), then sooner or later the powers that be will take us seriously!
3. As we discussed the importance of states’ rights, we realized that our most likely intervention point would be on a state level, so we are going to pursue avenues for getting/demanding an audience with our elected officials to assert our viewpoints and start making our views more relevant.
4. Next on the docket as reading material will be The Real George Washington by Jay Parry. It is over 900 pages but I’m told that’s a lot of reference pages. We thought we’d allow a several months for people to read the book, so we’re planning the next meeting tentatively for July 30 (8pm?) (email projectprinciples@gmail.com for details). At that meeting we’ll be watching a video on the Founding Fathers and discussing it, and further plans to empower ourselves, and find ways to hold our elected officials more accountable. We’ll set up a time from there to return and discuss the real George Washington and start reaching our leaders.
5. The group will start using our blog site, projectprinciples.blogspot.com to further our education, make us aware of issues, opportunities, etc. Please feel free to contact us at projectprinciples@gmail.com if you’d like author access. Please share! Also, please tell a friend. We hope everyone will bring someone else next time. If we can get a group of 50-100 people we can start getting audiences with our elected officials.
One of the most important things we took away was also the dire need we have to be a moral, virtuous people. We decided that it was one of the most important things we could be doing: setting an example of that for our children and those around us. The founding fathers believed that only a virtuous and moral people could "pull off" the American experiment.
Interestingly, I was reading in the scriptures this morning, and came across "Ye are the light of the world-a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid..." We agreed, cynics and optimists alike, that we must do what we can, and it seems like the way is opening for us to do more as moral, virtuous people than ever before.
Hey, the first meeting was a success! We had 13 attendees (two men, so know that you all are welcome!) with a robust discussion of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and plans for taking back this great country of ours, one principle at a time. Main ideas/areas of focus that came out of our discussion were:
1. Interest in Monica Shumway’s family lessons on the Constitution, from her mom. She will explore how to share these with us: FHEs, group discussion, etc.
2. Fostering interest in the tea party movement, especially for the 4th of July. Someone in Gilbert is planning one at the civic center. We all discussed attending with our families, and ways of encouraging others to attend as well. We feel that if the demonstrations continue to grow (hopefully exponentially in size), then sooner or later the powers that be will take us seriously!
3. As we discussed the importance of states’ rights, we realized that our most likely intervention point would be on a state level, so we are going to pursue avenues for getting/demanding an audience with our elected officials to assert our viewpoints and start making our views more relevant.
4. Next on the docket as reading material will be The Real George Washington by Jay Parry. It is over 900 pages but I’m told that’s a lot of reference pages. We thought we’d allow a several months for people to read the book, so we’re planning the next meeting tentatively for July 30 (8pm?) (email projectprinciples@gmail.com for details). At that meeting we’ll be watching a video on the Founding Fathers and discussing it, and further plans to empower ourselves, and find ways to hold our elected officials more accountable. We’ll set up a time from there to return and discuss the real George Washington and start reaching our leaders.
5. The group will start using our blog site, projectprinciples.blogspot.com to further our education, make us aware of issues, opportunities, etc. Please feel free to contact us at projectprinciples@gmail.com if you’d like author access. Please share! Also, please tell a friend. We hope everyone will bring someone else next time. If we can get a group of 50-100 people we can start getting audiences with our elected officials.
One of the most important things we took away was also the dire need we have to be a moral, virtuous people. We decided that it was one of the most important things we could be doing: setting an example of that for our children and those around us. The founding fathers believed that only a virtuous and moral people could "pull off" the American experiment.
Interestingly, I was reading in the scriptures this morning, and came across "Ye are the light of the world-a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid..." We agreed, cynics and optimists alike, that we must do what we can, and it seems like the way is opening for us to do more as moral, virtuous people than ever before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)