Congress is out of control. With the exception of a small cluster of patriots the bulk of the 535 members of the House and Senate have lost their collective minds. Facing a national debt that cannot be repaid and unfunded liabilities that cannot be sustained, Congress continues to spend the national wealth at a breath-taking pace. When families or households suffer an erosion of resources, they have to implement strategies to survive the crisis. They must implement cost-saving plans like purchasing generics rather than brand name items from the grocery store. This could be defined as a type of rationing. Does anyone with more than a single functioning brain cell believe that some sort of rationing will not be necessary for the plethora of government programs to continue? And what about the massive new programs that are coming down the pipeline? Check out the link. It says it all.
http://www.vidap.nl/napoleon/ Click the play arrow.
Philosophically, I have been opposed to term limits for political offices. I have believed that term limits denied the voters the opportunity to exercise true choices. There is, however, a medical crisis that has caused me to reconsider my position. It's called "Potomac Fever." There are local variations of this disease such as "Sacramento Sickness" in California, "Lansing Loopiness" in Michigan, "Columbus Cholera" in Ohio and "Albany Anemia" in New York. Each of the fifty states (57 if you're President Obama) has its own version of the dreaded, incurable sickness.
Prior to the development of the present miracles of medical science, it was commonplace for physicians to use leeches to "bleed" patients suffering from intense fever. The patient today, our nation, must be bled again, but we must start by eliminating the leeches first. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) has become the longest serving person in the history of the Congress. The former Grand Kleagle of the KKK has established a legacy as a master of pork. There are, I believe, porta potties named after him in his state. He hasn't been relevant since his little dog, Billy, went to that great kennel in the sky. Former senator, Strom Thurmond, held his office until he was in a semi-vegetative state. It's not the age of the politician that's at issue, but after so many years or decades of exposure to Potomac fever, the officeholder's judgement becomes radically impaired, and they begin to believe their own press clippings. Former Senator, J. William Fullbright (no favorite of mine, an unrepentant racist) had a book called "The Arrogance of Power." That title describes what happens too often when people serve too long.
We need the disinfectant of sun light on our national legislative body. For too long we, the citizens, have been treated as if we were a fungus...growing in the dark and frequently covered with crap or manure. It's the mushroom effect. It's time that we grow some legs and stand up for what is right. I have been against term limits because I believed the people should retain their power to decide who should represent them. I have changed my view. In many cases the voters have demonstrated that they are too lazy, too ignorant or too venal to make wise choices. Our country cannot afford to humor stupidity any longer. Term limits make cause us to lose a few good people but just a few. We can replace them, and maybe...just maybe...add a few more.
I'll develop my plan for term limits in a later blog, but I wanted to throw the idea on the table. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day. I am thankful for my Lord who saved me, for my family who loves me, and for my country who lets me vent so openly. May God bless America.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Six words that should be banned.
George Carlin had an old routine called "Seven Dirty Words." I'm not going to recreate that famous bit, but I do have six words that I believe should be banned as a unit. Individually the words are innocuous, perhaps even useful, but when phrased together, are quite damaging. These words can lead to a gradual erosion of our freedom. In fact, they already have. They are critical for the transferring of power from the people to the government. The six evil words are "there ought to be a law."
Back in my day as a state legislator more than a quarter century ago, those six words provided the basis of my "stump" speech. Every piece of legislation that is passed, whether locally, statewide or nationally, negatively affects the liberty of someone. In many respects, legislating resembles a zero-sum game. In order to "enhance" the lives of one group of citizens, the rights of another group must be restricted. Meanwhile, the state's power grows with each regulatory bauble that's added to the tree. We're getting close to the stage where we observe that the state tree is all aglow and beautifully adorned, while the individual citizen's liberty tree is being torn up by the roots.
When I hear someone utter "there ought to be a law," it generally follows that the person wants the government to coerce others so that their behavior conforms to his. The speaker is either too lazy or too inarticulate to convince others to adhere to the desired practice, therefore he seeks the strong arm of the law to enforce his preferences. As the laws on the various governmental books increase, they invariably begin to contradict one another (the lawyers' full employment provision) or become so picayune as to become laughable...unless you're cited for violating one.
The nature of law-making assumes that one size fits all. If you are fortunate to have a good lobbyist, then you may get an exemption for your group written into the final product. Even without considering how foolish it is to write laws that are fair and just for some three hundred million citizens (and who knows how many illegal...whoops, undocumented), the task is just as difficult at the city, village or township level. To illustrate the absurdity..consider any family with at least two children. There are (ideally) a set of basic rules to which both kids must adhere. Any parent with a modicum of intelligence and awareness knows that beyond the basics each child is unique...and must be engaged in a manner that differs from her/his sibling. So, do we write laws for individuals? It has happened, but no.
My copy of the "Constitution of the United States" is nineteen pages. The House and Senate "Health Care Reform" bills totalled four thousand pages. Hmmm. The Constitution is the basic. The others are the absurd. The Constitution establishes principles and parameters. The healthcare monstrosities establish winners and losers. The Constitution limits the government's power. The healthcare bills expand it.
Recently while reading a John Lescroart novel (The Oath), I came upon a statement that could summarize this blog entry (paraphrase): Facism consists of making laws forbidding everything and then selectively enforcing them against your enemies. That observation seems so painfully close to where we are today, and the healthcare debacle could (would) make it even worse. Nearly every facet of our lives will be subject to government oversight. For those who lust for security it might provide a comfortable cocoon. For those of us who cherish freedom and liberty the suffocating presence of Big Brother will be unacceptably oppressive. Something's gotta give.
We must halt the inexorable march toward benign big government. We must have the courage and personal responsibility to say "STOP!" We must use every device at our disposal to defeat the coming tyranny. In fact, there ought to be a law.....
Back in my day as a state legislator more than a quarter century ago, those six words provided the basis of my "stump" speech. Every piece of legislation that is passed, whether locally, statewide or nationally, negatively affects the liberty of someone. In many respects, legislating resembles a zero-sum game. In order to "enhance" the lives of one group of citizens, the rights of another group must be restricted. Meanwhile, the state's power grows with each regulatory bauble that's added to the tree. We're getting close to the stage where we observe that the state tree is all aglow and beautifully adorned, while the individual citizen's liberty tree is being torn up by the roots.
When I hear someone utter "there ought to be a law," it generally follows that the person wants the government to coerce others so that their behavior conforms to his. The speaker is either too lazy or too inarticulate to convince others to adhere to the desired practice, therefore he seeks the strong arm of the law to enforce his preferences. As the laws on the various governmental books increase, they invariably begin to contradict one another (the lawyers' full employment provision) or become so picayune as to become laughable...unless you're cited for violating one.
The nature of law-making assumes that one size fits all. If you are fortunate to have a good lobbyist, then you may get an exemption for your group written into the final product. Even without considering how foolish it is to write laws that are fair and just for some three hundred million citizens (and who knows how many illegal...whoops, undocumented), the task is just as difficult at the city, village or township level. To illustrate the absurdity..consider any family with at least two children. There are (ideally) a set of basic rules to which both kids must adhere. Any parent with a modicum of intelligence and awareness knows that beyond the basics each child is unique...and must be engaged in a manner that differs from her/his sibling. So, do we write laws for individuals? It has happened, but no.
My copy of the "Constitution of the United States" is nineteen pages. The House and Senate "Health Care Reform" bills totalled four thousand pages. Hmmm. The Constitution is the basic. The others are the absurd. The Constitution establishes principles and parameters. The healthcare monstrosities establish winners and losers. The Constitution limits the government's power. The healthcare bills expand it.
Recently while reading a John Lescroart novel (The Oath), I came upon a statement that could summarize this blog entry (paraphrase): Facism consists of making laws forbidding everything and then selectively enforcing them against your enemies. That observation seems so painfully close to where we are today, and the healthcare debacle could (would) make it even worse. Nearly every facet of our lives will be subject to government oversight. For those who lust for security it might provide a comfortable cocoon. For those of us who cherish freedom and liberty the suffocating presence of Big Brother will be unacceptably oppressive. Something's gotta give.
We must halt the inexorable march toward benign big government. We must have the courage and personal responsibility to say "STOP!" We must use every device at our disposal to defeat the coming tyranny. In fact, there ought to be a law.....
Congressional Appetites: The other white meat.
Today is Senator Mary Landrieu's fifty-fourth birthday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (the dim bulb from Searchlight, Nevada) has given her a special gift. The sun is shining in Louisiana because Marvelous Mary, the daughter of Moon Landrieu, has secured 300 million dollars in extra Medicare and Medicaid funds for the Bayou State. Reid wanted to avoid cloture on the so-called healthcare reform package, and to do so he needed at least 60 votes to move the legislation forward. The final bribe for Landrieu was three times that originally offered by Reid, and it proved sufficient. The measure to bring the bill forward for consideration passed 60 to 39. In Senator Landrieu's defense, she wasn't the only so-called moderate democrat whose faux angst and hand wringing made the ultimate outcome of the vote in doubt. Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson from Nebraska publicly shared their reservations about the over broad healthcare package. We have not yet discovered what their payoffs are as of Monday morning (November 23rd).
The situation described above is not unique or abnormal. It happens quite often as congressmen attempt to move legislation through a variety of competing interests and ideological differences. The Landieu-Louisiana caper seems so over-the-top because of its size, because of the massive national debt, and because Senator Landrieu appears to openly and joyfully embrace it. In a nation of 300 million people (Sen. Landrieu got 1 dollar from each of us), it is reasonable to expect that there will be a vast array of wishes, needs and attitudes about how Congress should respond. Invariably, the ultimate outcome is less than satisfying, and the process for securing a majority becomes ugly. Deals are cut. Trades are made. Backs are scratched. The citizenry is screwed.
When one is in a position of power...particularly in the U.S. Congress, there are four words that can be used to illustrate the legislator's options when confronted with a vexing vote or issue. They are: party, pretense, pork (the other white meat), or principle. Some officials serve in order to enjoy the position, the paycheck and the benefits. Whatever the issue, they blindly follow the party line. They invest little thought or effort but rely on party guidance to determine their positions.
Those who use pretense as a public posture revel in the attention they receive for agonizing about a particularly difficult matter. They seem to thrive when the Klieig lights and microphones are present. They are flattered when news people ask them to analyze the subject at hand because their assumed aire of indecision is considered thoughtful and intelligent. They are proud to be one of the undecided ones.
The "porkers" are obvious. "Give me the gravy and get my vote." At some basic level the porkers are admirable. No b.s., no pretense, no blindly following the party. Their major weakness, though, is that generally the majority party is the only which how can deliver the pork. If the majority does not require the vote of the porker to pass a piece of legislation, then the porcine-loving legislator will not "bring home the bacon." Their effectiveness is limited.
Principles represent a basic belief and value system that the congressperson uses to assess legislation. They provide a template for measuring each and every bill. Principled legislators will not support measures that violate their standards. You will never hear a principled officeholder say that he or she is voting to move a bill to the floor so that it can be debated if she has determined it to be noxious. To the principled legislator...good is good and bad is bad. They do not go along to get along.
So, where does our birthday girl fit into this little lexicon of political motivation? For the party? Check. Agonizing, hand-wringing pretense? Check. Pork? Three hundred million checks. Principle? Nah. So, I guess that we can surmise that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) is a pork sucking, drama-queen partisan with no principles. Unfortunately she's not alone. Happy birthday, Mary.
When one examines the fiscal nightmare that haunts the United States, the underfunded liabilities appear front and center.
The situation described above is not unique or abnormal. It happens quite often as congressmen attempt to move legislation through a variety of competing interests and ideological differences. The Landieu-Louisiana caper seems so over-the-top because of its size, because of the massive national debt, and because Senator Landrieu appears to openly and joyfully embrace it. In a nation of 300 million people (Sen. Landrieu got 1 dollar from each of us), it is reasonable to expect that there will be a vast array of wishes, needs and attitudes about how Congress should respond. Invariably, the ultimate outcome is less than satisfying, and the process for securing a majority becomes ugly. Deals are cut. Trades are made. Backs are scratched. The citizenry is screwed.
When one is in a position of power...particularly in the U.S. Congress, there are four words that can be used to illustrate the legislator's options when confronted with a vexing vote or issue. They are: party, pretense, pork (the other white meat), or principle. Some officials serve in order to enjoy the position, the paycheck and the benefits. Whatever the issue, they blindly follow the party line. They invest little thought or effort but rely on party guidance to determine their positions.
Those who use pretense as a public posture revel in the attention they receive for agonizing about a particularly difficult matter. They seem to thrive when the Klieig lights and microphones are present. They are flattered when news people ask them to analyze the subject at hand because their assumed aire of indecision is considered thoughtful and intelligent. They are proud to be one of the undecided ones.
The "porkers" are obvious. "Give me the gravy and get my vote." At some basic level the porkers are admirable. No b.s., no pretense, no blindly following the party. Their major weakness, though, is that generally the majority party is the only which how can deliver the pork. If the majority does not require the vote of the porker to pass a piece of legislation, then the porcine-loving legislator will not "bring home the bacon." Their effectiveness is limited.
Principles represent a basic belief and value system that the congressperson uses to assess legislation. They provide a template for measuring each and every bill. Principled legislators will not support measures that violate their standards. You will never hear a principled officeholder say that he or she is voting to move a bill to the floor so that it can be debated if she has determined it to be noxious. To the principled legislator...good is good and bad is bad. They do not go along to get along.
So, where does our birthday girl fit into this little lexicon of political motivation? For the party? Check. Agonizing, hand-wringing pretense? Check. Pork? Three hundred million checks. Principle? Nah. So, I guess that we can surmise that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) is a pork sucking, drama-queen partisan with no principles. Unfortunately she's not alone. Happy birthday, Mary.
When one examines the fiscal nightmare that haunts the United States, the underfunded liabilities appear front and center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
