I really have great trepidation over where we are headed… We are creating a new system here. . . . The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable. Within that system you have a rise of an uber-presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. And I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift.”
George Washington University Law Professor, Dr. Jonathan Turley describing the evolving Executive Branch during the Bush Administration
Andrew’s Note: Many folks I talk with day-to-day forget that this increasing concentration of power in the Executive Branch and the Bureaucracy predate the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. One can only imagine how much potentially tyrannical power our Executive will have in 20 years if we don’t start opposing Executive power expansions and rolling back the extra-Constitutional powers that have already been usurped.
Writing about the Habsburg Empire, distinguished British historian Paul Johnson said, “Every reform created more problems than it solved.” That was not peculiar to the Habsburg Empire. The same could be said of modern welfare states, and especially our own ObamaCare.
Dr. Thomas Sowell
A journalist for The Atlantic named Elizabeth Stoker and her colleague Matt Bruenig are trying to create a monster even more destructive than Stoker’s namesake Bram created..but this one is known as the Universal Basic Income.
In the United States, we are generally told that poverty is a deeply complicated problem whose solution requires dozens of reforms on issues as diverse as public schooling, job training, and marriage.
But it’s not true. High rates of poverty can, as a policy matter, be solved with trivial ease. How? By simply giving the poor money.
The economically undereducated due go on to point out how simple the process would be and all the great benefits like:
Government is necessary for our survival. We need government in order to survive. The Founding Fathers created a special place for government. It is called the Constitution.
Andrew’s Note: Yes, Badnarik is a little extreme in some of his views but I included his quote today to remind us that the opposite of big government isn’t small government the opposite of big government is anarchy…small government is the rational middle ground.
Article I of the impeachment proceedings claims that Holder “engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him” by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for documents related to “a legitimate congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that put thousands of illegally-purchased weapons into the hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.”
Article II of the proceedings charges that Holder violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce certain laws that the Obama administration, for various reasons, decided not to enforce, including the Defense of Marriage Act, which the administration deemed unconstitutional.
Article III also charges that Holder violated his oath of office, this time by “refusing to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.”
Finally, Article IV claims Holder “provided false testimony to the House Judiciary Committee” regarding the potential prosecution of a member of the news media, Fox News correspondent James Rosen, using the Espionage Act.
Rep. Pete Olson describing the Articles of Impeachment he intends to file against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
Andrew’s Note: What, no mention of post facto support to and fostering of election tampering and opposing laws intended to assure the integrity of elections?
What — what is that American Promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will…
Then Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, 2008
Andrew’s Note: Mr. President I couldn’t agree more! What a nice phrase, “the freedom to make of our own lives what we will…” Now please stop appointing socialists to high office, as well as encouraging legislation, allowing Federal regulations and issuing Executive
Orders Decrees that decrease our freedom…that’s tantamount to breaking the American Promise!
Illinoisans with a felony on their records will no longer be asked about their criminal past when they apply for state jobs.
Promoting the decision to what he calls “Ban the Box,” State Rep. LaShawn K. Ford (D-Chicago) says the governor’s administrative order doesn’t mean private employers will be required to hire ex-cons. It simply means applications for state government jobs will no longer include a box indicating whether an applicant has pled guilty, or been convicted of a criminal offense, other than a minor traffic violation…
Andrew’s Note: So let me get this straight…in the interests of ‘fairness,’ Illinois is going to let:
Seems to me the best predictor of future behavior is a look at past behavior. The idea of going out of your way to interview felons for positions of trust and potential power is at the very least a waste of resources…and is utter stupidity and self destructive at worst.
According to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study, more than 1 in 5 public school teachers sent their children to private schools. In some cities, the figure is much higher…
Only 11 percent of all [teacher & non-teacher alike] parents enroll their children in private schools.
The fact that so many public school teachers enroll their own children in private schools ought to raise questions. After all, what would you think, after having accepted a dinner invitation, if you discovered that the owner, chef, waiters and busboys at the restaurant to which you were being taken don’t eat there? That would suggest they have some inside information from which you might benefit.
Andrew’s Note: Public School Teachers prefer private school for their kids by a 2:1 margin. I had no idea…
Ludicrous, irresponsible spending is why we’re in trouble. As columnist Ron Hart points out, [President] Bill Clinton’s balanced budget spent $1.7 trillion. “Adjusted for inflation,” he writes, “our federal government would (have) a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under [President] Bush and [President] Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a ‘revenue’ problem instead of a ‘spending’ problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem.”
The media obsess about tax rates, but spending is more important. As Milton Friedman taught us, spending is a far more accurate gauge of the government burden. If government spends a dollar, that dollar is taxed away from someone. If it’s borrowed, it’s removed from productive use, setting the stage for higher taxes later. If the government prints more dollars to fund spending, our purchasing power falls. Transferring purchasing power from the people to the government via inflation is a form of taxation.
If Republicans and Democrats reach a deal, the tax increases will be real — but spending “cuts” probably illusions. If they actually happen, they will only be reductions in already planned increases.
…the uncertainty of the laws confirms and increases men’s indolence and stupidity. In a voluptuous but active nation, this uncertainty occasions a multiplicity of cabals and intrigues, which spread distrust and diffidence through the hearts of all, and dissimulation and treachery are the foundation of their prudence.
President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality. Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act ACA, he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.” He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here…”
Andrew’s Note: The key takeaway from Dr. Will’s comment is “offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.” This mantra is getting all too common from our elected leaders and doesn’t bode well for our future if we don’t send strong messages through our representatives and the ballot box. This whole idea that ‘there’s just no time to follow the legal process’ is nothing short of a move to rule by decree. I’m no supporter of the horribly misnamed Affordable Care Act and would love to see it repealed but the administration has taken the position that it’s the law of the land…they just don’t intend to follow it.
We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight… We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to… serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.
I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following… Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you.
Journalist David Frost: “Would you say that there are certain situations . . . where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation . . . and do something illegal?”
President Richard M. Nixon: ”Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
Frost: “By definition.”
Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”
Andrew’s Note: Sometimes it feels like 1977 all over again…
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in their Annual Snapshot of The Federal Regulatory State, The Ten Thousand Commandments, the annual cost of compliance for that we must pay to stay within the ‘ten thousand commandments’ is over $1.8 Trillion! Explained another way, for every dollar in revenue that the U.S. government took in during fiscal year 2012, consumers and businesses paid another 73 cents in compliance costs. Those of us who own businesses see the costs of compliance directly (tax preparation, ACA, HIPPA, EPA regulations, etc.) and costs are necessarily passed through to the consumers. Those consumers also see direct compliance costs through items like the cost of tax preparation.
When I have to spend so much time, money and energy making sure I’m in compliance with laws and regulations…why does our Federal Government get a pass whenever they feel that a law or regulation is an annoyance. Living with the Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare was an annoyance for Congressional employees so the government recently passed a new law exempting Congress and it’s staffers from the laws that the rest of us have to live with. In that case, at least Congress changed the law…but there are a number of other recent cases where our own government just ignores the laws it finds annoying. One such law that seems to be annoying our executive branch is the spending cap passed by Congress: Continue reading
It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.
President Calvin Coolidge