Ending Entitlements

As a small-government constitutionalist (actually I prefer the Articles of Confederation), I shudder when I suggest that it may not be prudent or practical to end our federal entitlement apparatus. Entitlements represent the epitome of government theft by force. They take the wealth and property from one citizen and transfer it to another. The problem is that our entitlement mentality has become so entrenched that weaning the recipients could result in violent confrontation. The very last development we can afford in times of fiscal and social stress is to encourage or implement robust policing by the government. Neither the welfare state nor the police state is healthy for liberty.

Another factor that affects the wisdom of eliminating the major portion of the entitlement structure is the regulatory over reach of government at every level. If our goal is to remove people from government benefits, there must be a viable alternative for them to support themselves, their families and to pursue personal wealth. The present regulatory nightmare is not friendly for new startups and, in many cases, discourages creative, energetic people from becoming entrepreneurs. The same government that developed programs to create dependency status for recipients has erected innumerable barriers for those who wish to become self-sufficient.

Dismantling the entitlement and welfare superstructures is a good start towards smaller more constitutional government, but for the reasons cited above and for philosophical and constitutional reasons, the regulatory maze must be simultaneously disassembled. In many respects an attempt to develop a sensible regulatory regime will be infinitely more challenging than ending the entitlement fiasco. Layer after layer, exception after exception and rule after rule exist in a political lasagna of nanny-state oversight. The multi-layered regulatory control mechanism will be extremely difficult to unravel. As one tier or another is peeled away, some unscrupulous individuals or companies may seek to take advantage of the opening. Their schemes could cause the public and the professional political class to demand the restoration of the regulatory oversight. In addition the various agencies and departments are so over-lapped that eliminating one noxious regulation may expose another just as toxic.

Now we move back to the original premise of this column. The drastic reduction of the entitlement/direct subsidy function of the government must be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether in order to restore fiscal sanity and constitutional government. That isn’t enough however as the myriad rules and regulations lie in wait to subvert our efforts to secure our liberty. The task is monumental, but it is vital if we are to pull Nanny’s rug out from under many of our fellow citizens. Concurrent with their weaning they must have a corresponding freedom to pursue their personal prosperity. We cannot in good conscience destroy their lifeboats on which they have depended perhaps for generations without providing the life vests of freedom. Unskilled people whose motivations and dreams have been blunted by government handouts must be allowed as much leeway as is possible to develop the skills and habits necessary for survival…..and for thriving.

Our federal government has grown so large and cumbersome that an objective analysis would suggest that inefficiencies and cost overruns are standard operating procedure. One doesn’t have to be a constitutionalist to understand that our government cannot adequately perform the tasks that it has claimed for itself. Reducing the monster to a functional role is a monumental task. Shrinking the leviathan to its constitutional function requires a radical vivisection that will cause massive disruptive upheaval. The radical remedy is the only viable one because we have experienced the steady growth of government in our lifetimes. Partial solutions will result in little gain as the incremental reestablishment of big government will accelerate and overwhelm us.

We cannot simply address the looter class and their living off the largesse of productive taxpayers. We must attack and eliminate every tentacle of the big government monster in order to rebuild the dream of our Founders and Framers. Restructuring and rebuilding will be painful. The path to restoration is littered with traps and foes. We must be strong. We must be resolute. We must be victorious.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

   

  

CPAC Saga

The 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was held in Washington, D.C. this past weekend. Nearly 12,000 people attended, and roughly half of them were students. The exhibitors were stationed all over the Marriott, but most were concentrated in the two huge halls in the lower level. They represented a broad range of issues, organizations and movements within the “conservative” movement. If one roamed the halls of the convention (as I did), one would find it difficult to identify or define just what the conservative agenda is. Strong international military presence versus interventionist war making, preservation of all life versus “choices” in life decisions, gay marriage opposed by “family values all represented some of the dichotomies that were glaringly present.

For the sake of brevity and clarity, I will begin with the requisite name dropping. The following list represents those people with whom I had short conversations (I had NO lengthy conversations because I didn’t go to any bars):

                Brian Wilson, WSPD Radio (Toledo); Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal; Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky; Jonathon Alder, Newsweek columnist; Congressman Steve King, R-Iowa; James Bovard, thinker, writer and commentator; various exhibitors and organizational representatives.

This is the “howdy” group: Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, R-California; John Fund, Wall Street Journal and Town Hall; Bob Tyrell, The American Spectator, publisher and columnist; George Will, syndicated columnist; David Horowitz, author and speaker; Jacob Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation; Bruce Fein, author and analyst; Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota; Jack Hunter, radio host from South Carolina; and Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico.

These are the presenters whose programs that I attended: Ron Paul; Gary Johnson; Haley Barbour; Bruce Fein; Jacob Hornberger; Jim Bovard; Mike Church; Jack Hunter; Dan McCarthy; Pat Caudell; Tom Woods; and Dr. Joseph Salerno.

The variety of topics that were available for the attendees was massive. Clearly, as a Libertarian, I tended to drift towards the programs that addressed issues that I found personally compelling. Two of the most informative discussions for me involved an analysis of the Patriot Act and an in-depth look at the Federal Reserve Bank. Jacob Hornberger, Jim Bovard and Ivan Eland presented a lively condemnation of the Patriot Act and its abuse of our Fourth Amendment rights. They must be brilliant men because they agreed with my assessment that Section 215 (see “www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com , Please State) of the Act is particularly noxious because of its broad and potentially oppressive nature.

Dr. Salerno’s seminar on the Fed was enlightening and comprehensive. I may seem to be a conspiracy theorist here, but many of our country’s problems, foreign and domestic, have the slimy grimy fingerprints of the Federal Reserve Bank visible somewhere. He discussed the likelihood of hyperinflation for our national economy and placed it within the historical context of the Feds development. One particularly telling statement from Dr. Salerno was the monopolistic nature of the Fed…a private consortium of mega banks with the unchallenged right to regulate the money supply. In my view, there are two glaring errors with this scenario: 1.) Congress has shifted an enumerated power to an unaccountable private entity; and 2.) the monopolistic and secretive attributes of the Fed are exempt from anti-trust review. To illustrate: don’t hand over your firearm to a stranger whom you’ve invited in to your home.

Ron Paul won the Straw Poll of attendees with roughly 30% of the vote. His Friday speech commanded the largest audience (nearly 7,000), and my limited powers of observation detected about a 98% favorable response to his comments. Of all the “potential” GOP candidates for President in 2012, Dr. Paul and Gary Johnson had the most coherent and straightforward speeches. Some of the others gave good speeches, but were short on significant policy initiatives that would address the overspending, the over taxing, and the hyper growth of government. Platitudes are not policy. I fear, however as the 2012 election draws nearer, platitudes and pretty faces will trump serious attempts to get the monster under control. I saw it at the CPAC convention. Young registrants and older ones who were star struck by the appearance of a candidate despite his or her unwillingness to straightforwardly address any of our vexing issues. In a word…the final word….the roughly twelve thousand (12,000) people who attended CPAC should be better read and more informed than the general populace, but they seem to fall for the same slick shtick that their fellow citizens embrace.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Let the Light Shine

The light began to shine ever so faintly in 2004. Its luminance increased with every misstep by the Republicans in Congress until the summer of 2009 when I couldn’t take it any more. The coup de grace was when Senator Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate Minority was not going to blast and filibuster the massive healthcare takeover, but, instead, were going to introduce a series of amendments that improved the bill “on the margins.” I….was…livid. “Fight the SOB, you cowardly lizard,” I remember screaming at my radio. Thus began my thorough self-analysis. For my entire political life I had been a conservative Republican. I believe in a merciful, loving and righteous God whose Son came to Earth to die for my sinful nature thereby placing me under the mantle of grace if I would repent and accept His lordship. I believe that life is precious and begins at the instant of conception. A strong military deterrence is a critical component of my USA-based worldview. I believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are inspired and are the bedrocks of our Constitutional republic. I believe that these two documents are sufficient unto themselves and require no enhancements (aside from lawful amendments) by institutions or persons who are themselves imperfect. I fear a government that grows beyond its Constitutional mandate for it has no heart, no mind and no soul. Because of its amoral foundation, such a government has no internal mechanism for restraining its growth, its power, and its abusive behavior. Only when good people with lofty intentions strictly adhere to Constitutional limits can our nation reach its highest level of achievement….whether political or economic.


So, I was a conservative Republican whose very principles and deeply held beliefs were being challenged, ignored and violated by members of my own party on a daily basis. Without exaggeration, I can state that at least once per day since my August epiphany, I have discovered an element of Republican neglect, compromise or perfidy. When my eyes were covered with scales, I did not see. It grieves me to possess this painful awareness. Many of my dearest friends and colleagues are serving in government and are tripping forward unaware that their eyes are clouded. They’re merely governing. Cutting deals when necessary. Compromising when it’s politically desirable. Attempting to navigate the legislative minefield without triggering massive voter discontent. Yeah, yeah I believe in the Constitution, they affirm, and then abuse it with their next vote.

It was important for me to find a political nesting place that had few rules, but one that would zealously honor them. Smaller Constitutional government, lower taxes as a result of smaller government, and more personal freedom works for me. A smaller less-intrusive government will by its very definition result in more personal freedom for citizens. Preserve, protect and defend persons and property plus the enforcement of voluntary contracts should be the only portfolio of a Constitutional government. Anything else involves using government power to coerce other people or to take their property. Theft and tyranny are always theft and tyranny…even when benignly implemented by the state. My dear old friends have forgotten the lessons of history. I mourn their straying from the path of honest and faithful self government. I love them. I respect many of them, but I cannot follow their path to disintegration. I must follow my own.

Comment or email:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com

Stars and Stripes

Stars and Stripes:


Do you watch American Idol? Is it in your “can’t miss” category of weekly scheduling? What about Dancing with the Stars? Watch the Daily Show? Are you familiar with Lindy Lohan’s complete rap sheet or the daily challenges for Brittany Spears? Obviously these are rhetorical questions that beg the question: How pervasive is the cult of celebrity in the United States? Anyone who has an opinion can express it without fear of having the government prohibiting free non-threatening expression. That’s chiseled in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Many of the pop culture stars have opinions, and they share them freely and frequently. What puzzles me is that so many people view the celebrity statements as serious and worthy of consideration. Just because someone has attained a level of “stardom,” doesn’t necessarily mean that their opinions are notable. If the celeb has done something that merits our attention and has “walked the walk,” then perhaps their pronouncements should be considered. Otherwise having a high “Q” rating or positive name identification does not translate into knowledge about public policy. When a star has earned her/his stripes, then I’ll listen. A final example is celebrity assuming more credibility than it deserves is the Wednesday morning headline on the “Drudge Report” suggesting that Scott Brown may/should run for president. Give me a break; he hasn’t yet gotten a key to the Capitol men’s room. One of the big problems with a professional political class (like Mandarin eunuchs) is the assumption that the politico will be seeking the next higher office. Service? What service?


Crockpots and Skillets:

As I have struggled with my newly formed political I.D., I’ve been searching for a metaphor that accurately and picturesquely describes my sense of the two-party duopoly.

I believe that our country is firmly on the path toward tyranny. The power of government at all levels is growing. In my view it’s an ominous evolution that will stifle the human spirit. The progressives and their cohorts are cooking my goose in a skillet. Hot and fast with a splattering of grease. Unfortunately, some people get burned, but every cook drops an egg once in a while. The “conservatives,” on the other hand, use a crockpot to heat my honker. A little expansion of Medicare RX here, a tiny bit of eroded rights there, a smaller tax increase over there, just a pinch of further regulation, and Viola’ add a spoon full of sugar (rhetoric) and the dinner will go down.

Progressives/statists have no boundaries. They want to control it all (except themselves). They surge forward, gobbling up power as fast as they can. Conservatives (picture tweed jacket, bow tie and horned-rim glasses) say, “Government should not overreach, there are limits, and to prove it, we will draw those limits with this pencil.” Libertarians say, “Wait a minute! Drawing with a pencil is worthless; you’ll continue to move the line. Go back to the Constitution, and stay within the boundaries. If you want to move the line, then amend it.” Skillets and crockpots…either way your goose gets cooked.


Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com

What to do about Sarah: the unabridged version.

As Sarah Palin begins her intergalactic tour (I describe it this way because leftists believe she is from another planet), I submit my thesis on why she is loathed or feared by so many on the left...including faux conservative, David Brooks. There are, I believe, two words that can be viewed as foundational when attempting to describe this phenomenon. They are grace and dysfunction. Lefties often cite the personal or public failings of conservatives as proof of their hypocrisy, thus rendering the conservative unworthy of the Public's trust. The progressives attack every flaw( whether real, perceived or false)  as evidence that the conservative has forfeited her/his credibility and trustworthiness.

As a Christian, Sarah and others who share her faith, understands that we are all fallen. We are incapable because of our fallen nature of living up to a standard that is worthy of our Lord. Because the Lord wants to spend eternity with us, He went to the cross, paid the penalty for our sins and arose from the grave to give us a new life, a new beginning that is free from eternal condemnation. As believers we live under his grace. Our failings, our shortcomings while real, are erased from the book of judgement. Because of this gift of grace, believers can move forward with confidence and assurance as long as we attempt to honor Him and understand that it is His mercy that allows us to go on.

Progressives, on the other hand, generally assume that the doctrine of grace is the province of rubes, rednecks, hillbillies and other such undesirables. Many leftists celebrate and encourage dysfunction  (e.g. lifestyle choices) while vociferously proclaiming that no one is worthy enough to judge the aberrant behaviors. In some respects they are correct. The only judge with authority and standing is God. The Lord has, however, given us His Word as a guidepost and a comfort to guide our walk. Lefties usually dismiss the validity of the word and whine about its mean-spirited judgementalism. Meanwhile, the progressive agenda seeks via legislation and the courts to legitimize every deviant behavior...while condemning and ostracizing those conservatives and believers who have fallen into the mire. This is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Liberals, progressives and others of their ilk seem to feel threatened by anyone who lives under the glow of grace. They reactively condemn, demean and seek to destroy those who enjoy the fruits of belief. Believers understand that dysfunctional deviant behavior is wrong, but it is a result of our fallen nature. Believers embrace the gift of mercy and grace, while progressives slap the face of God.