Federalist 17 – Revisited
I sincerely doubt that there is a full measure of one percent of the US citizenry (note I did NOT say population) that has read the entirety of our founding documents, or any of the contemporary writing of that time… of their own volition. I’m sure a good number of us were forced to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but other than that, most of us have decidedly avoided reading these precious pieces of history for whatever reason… Presently, and with much embarrassment, I have to count myself in the ignorant majority. It is a current endeavor of mine to remedy the situation. To that end, my current reading assignment is “The Federalist Papers”, written by that well known Patriot of the day, Publius.
What? Who? (Most of the mental gears of the masses just creaked to a halt.)
If you have never read the Federalist Papers (and/or have mentally deleted your American History education) they were a series of articles supporting the ratification of the Constitution. They were written by three men, all preeminent figures in U.S. history, under the one pen name of Publius. Widely published in the newspapers of the day, each was addressed specifically to the people, not the politicians.
Today I would like to reexamine one of these articles, as I feel that it is not only relevant, but telling in today’s political climate. With President Obama and his administration engaged in an overt effort to seize financial institutions and with bailout-mania going on, I think you will begin to see how far afield this government of ours has gone.
Oh, and one last caveat before we begin: I am fully aware that I have the great benefit of hindsight in responding to this article, better than two hundred years worth, to be precise. I, therefore do not see this as any great feat of political thought or reasoning… just a solid review of what has been, and what currently is, for the purposes of re-orienting the politically lost amongst us.
Let us begin with the words of the document itself:
“It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government. But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition; still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #17
Well, does that sound like the federal government that you know and love? Not hardly. To begin, I cannot think of very many aspects of the federal government that are dignified or splendorous… important perhaps, but not splendorous. What makes this passage appear so naive (from our now experienced perch) is the notion that the government exists to serve the will and well-being of the nation alone and not its own wants or needs. Hamilton speaks of the Representatives of each state coming together to squash any potential usurpation of powers that would present a danger to the individual states themselves. So, who represents the State in which you live in our national government? Your representatives? Your Senators? No. Neither of those represent the interests of the State of your residence. In fact, nobody does. The only representation in our government is that of the individual citizens of the United States. Zimbabwe has official representation in DC, but Georgia does not. How is that?
Well, lets look back at the Constitution (since the purpose of these articles was to support its adoption). Article I, Section 3 states (in part):
…”and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies“
Did you get that? The legislature of each individual State is to fill the offices of the Senate, according to the original text of the Constitution. Which, I think we can all agree would give each state a solid voice in government. So why is that not the case now? Look to the 17th Amendment. It was the genesis of our current situation, the popular election of Senators. Presented for ratification in the summer of 1912, the 17th amendment was a response to a growing movement amongst the populace and the individual states for the direct election of senators. By the time the amendment was sent to the states, there were already a number of states that had changed their own state electoral process to encompass direct election. The biggest issue were the deadlocks that would occur in individual state legislatures, preventing any representation from that state from being seated at all. While that is a problem, I don’t think that the people of the state would stand for a lack of representation for very long in this day and age. Heads would roll and seats would be reassigned. Repealing the 17th Amendment would immediately reinstate a power and importance to the Legislatures of the States that has been sorely needed for nearly a century. It would also assure that the individual States would have direct access to the governmental process.
The second part of this argument goes directly to the education of the populace and the universally recognized (yet legally nonexistent) “right to vote”. It is my opinion, and I am sure that it is shared to some extent by most of the country, that there are certain people who have no business casting a ballot for any type of election. The difference comes in how that group of people is defined. Should those dependent on the government for sustenance be allowed to vote? How about criminals? Maybe just people who own their own home? When the Constitution was ratified, the opinion that all could vote was not the norm. In fact it would have been seen as lunacy. Do I agree with their reasons for denying the vote to certain classes of citizens based on race and gender? Heck no. Race and gender are not valid reasons to prevent someone from voting. Do I see the wisdom in restricting the privilege of voting to those who are educated enough and self sustaining? Absolutely. That very thought goes directly to the point of the quoted text:
…”the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.”
Can the uninformed and uneducated be considered to have sense as to how best run the nation? Certainly not. What is to keep them from voting based on what they want for themselves materially? Shouldn’t a basic understanding of economics and civics be a requisite for the privilege of casting a ballot?
Coming back to the situation in which we find ourselves currently, I would put forth that it is entirely fair and accurate to argue that we can see the result of not having any check on the federal government, and that it is not a good result. Our President is engaging in policy decisions that are self-evidently anathema to solving our current market slump and naive at best. Raising taxes on producers and investors in a down economy? Are you kidding me? Seizing privately held companies and interfering with the free market with such a brash and arrogant demeanor? Who is going to invest money with a financial firm when the “geniuses in the Big White buildings” may come along and, by fiat, take what you have invested outright? Yeah, that’s the way to go.
Getting back to the point… Even Alexander Hamilton, who was a strident proponent of a strong central government, saw that the States must be empowered to check the power of the national government in order to prevent this kind of usurpation of power. This nation has always been greatest when it is free to grow and prosper unfettered by government. Let them do as they are Constitutionally instructed: maintain peace, national unity and the rule of law, but short of that, stay the hell out of our business. We don’t need 73 levels of government approval for anything, and we don’t need a ‘nanny state’ to wipe our rear end and hand out band-aids for our boo-boos…just a swift and draconian reaction to those who disregard the lives and liberties of others. If the people who designed this government to be strong still wanted its reach and effect to be so obviously limited, how the hell did we end up with this monster that lives in a 10 mile square on the Potomac River?
Economic Growth
The common theme we’ve been hearing every day since the economy started its downward spiral is: get the economy back on track. Basically, we need to economy to stop shrinking and start growing again.
Many people have offered their ideas as to how we can right the ship again. Let the bad companies fail. Set up the bad bank corporation, similar to the S&L struggles of the 80′s. Government has even thrown its hat into the ring by passing out billions of our tax dollars in bailout money and promising to pass out billions more with their spending…er, stimulus bill.
And none of these will work. They are all band-aids designed to merely stop the bleeding, but not cauterize the wound. I ask you – what good does a band aid do when you’ve cut open your leg with a chainsaw? Nothing.
But I do have a solution. It’s pretty simple and it will be FAIR to everyone.
What is this magical solution I speak of? The FairTax. That’s right the way to solve our economic crisis is through the complete reform of our current tax system.
The reasons why the FairTax would get our economy growing again are to lengthy to post in one sitting, so I’ll be covering the FairTax, piece by piece in a series of posts over the next few weeks. If you don’t know anything about the FairTax or THINK you know all there is to know, I encourage you to stay tuned and learn more about what I consider the greatest idea to come from a Congressman in a long time.
We’re all gonna die!!!! Oh, wait… now it’s gonna be ok.
Does it surprise anyone that the Obama-stoked, catastrophe-ridden outlook for the U.S. Economy (as put forth by the president and his minions) is suddenly over? Anyone want to place bets on why? How about I lay it out for you instead… since none of us (apparently) has any money with which to gamble anyway. Now that the budget and the stimulus have passed, they don’t need to scream about how the sky is falling. Now that they got what they wanted, it’s all cheery outlook and ‘not as bad as we thought it was’. Now I can hear some people’s brains grinding in an effort to figure out my train of thought on this. Let me provide a little bit of mental 10W-30: Ever hear a car commercial that was screaming at you through the radio or TV? What kind of cars were they selling? Here’s a hint: It sure as heck wasn’t a Porche dealer…
If you scream at the idiot masses, they react. That is why less expensive car dealers use screaming commercials. The louder it is, the better the deal must be… Unfortunately, with most Americans, courses are plotted based on reactive decision making, not proactive decision making. Why is this country as a whole buried in debt? Lack of ability to plan and budget. (Both are proactive activities by the way) The bottom line is this: “If you scream at them, they will react.” It’s the political equivalent of screaming “fire” in a crowded theater.
Now that Obama has what he wants, it’s time to calm the crowd down and make them think that he was the one that put out the fire. Nevermind the fact that he was the one with the lighter fluid and the match. Now, that sounds like a pretty blatant accusation that at least some of this is his fault. Well, look at the stock market. Since he has taken office the stock market has dropped 3000+ points. Funny enough, it seems to take a major dive every time he or one of his cabinet members open their mouths. More government control of banks? WHOOSH! (that actually IS the sound that the stock market makes when it plunges due to governmental interference)
These idiots are making the most use of this down market that they can. Why else would Rahm Emmanuel be talking about “not wasting a good crisis”? How the hell is this crisis GOOD? What kind of self-serving, politically agenda-driven ass would make such a statement?? Better question: Why is he still White House chief of staff after uttering such a catastrophically STUPID sentence? These people don’t CARE about you. The market will come back, it always does. The bad part is that they will (of course) take credit for having caused it. Kinda like taking credit for saving a burning building by letting the fire burn out.
Well, I suppose that given the circumstances and the current state of American political prowess, I should just use the tried and true methods of reaching the majority.
THIS GUY IS A SOCIALIST AND WANTS TO MAKE YOU A DEPENDENT GOVERMENT WARD!!!
Did anyone react? Nah, didn’t think so. I didn’t use the word “Free”, the phrase “Zero down” or offer to take any trade, no matter what they owe…
Time for limits?
With the enormous amount of spending being done by our current Congress (pork included), I think the questions needs to be asked:
Do we need to impose limits to the number of terms senators and representatives can serve?
We limit the terms our President can serve (which limits his power), yet we do nothing to limit the power and influence of the Congress. Take Ted Kennedy, for example. Here’s a guy that has been in the Senate since 1962. So this man has exerted influence over the country for 47 years. Read that again.
47 years.
47 years of Kennedy’s politics. 47 years of extreme left wing ideas. 47 years of one man’s agenda affecting the outcome of bills and the money being spent by our government (read: you and I).
If there were limits to the number of terms served, you’d get more accomplished. If you knew you only had 6 years to accomplish something while in office, you’d be a lot more focused in your approach. Also, you’d be a little less worried about buying votes (through pork spending and the like) for the next election (since you wouldn’t be eligible) and more worried about making a real change.
Why do we limit the term of one man, but let 535 people serve for as long as they want, especially when they are passing garbage like the most recent spending bill? (For those wondering, “What spending bill?”, it’s the one masquerading as a “stimulus” bill.) It doesn’t make sense.
Limit the number of terms and you’ll see a more focused Congress and a more efficient Congress.
Mmmm… Barbeque
Well, it’s time to trot on down to the “Omnibus Barbeque Pit” for a healthy dose of government pork. Who’s comin with me? It’s all you can eat, all the time! I mean, seriously folks, how else would they dispose of all the extra pork in that place?
Well, now we know. Attached hereto is a list of the top 20 “Porkers” in the senate, taken from a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. I have modified the list slightly (added party and state) and deleted empty columns, but have not altered or skewed the raw data in any way.
You will see that the pork is actualy spread around both the left and right side of the table, and has been generously dished out all the way around. Does this surprise us? No, probably not. Should it concern us? Yer damn right it should. What is all this money paying for? Do we as citizens get to look at any of this before we get to pay for it? Well, I suppose we can wait for the media to tell us what all these earmarks are… nevermind. Most of us won’t live that long. I guess we could go look it up, or even call your congressman to see what’s in it. Of course, all of that is fairly reactionary in nature. How about a proactive path?
Here’s a thought: How about a constitutional ammendment that prohibits any expenditure in a Federal Budget or Spending bill that is not vital to the function of the federal government? WHAT??! Slow down the pork? You betcha. Slow down the whole system? Absolutely. Cut the federal budget in half? Amen.
Would it not be much more pallatable to the citizenry of the United States to have every expenditure of Federally collected money (note I said collected, since it is actually YOUR money) individually approved by our representatives so that we have a much more valid expression of OUR will in congress? Remember that ‘Bridge to Nowhere’? How do you think that would have fared as an idividual bill? Probably never would have seen it’s way out of committee… which is how it SHOULD be. If every one of these bills had to be individually approved, most of this garbage would disappear overnight simply because there isn’t enough time to look at all of it. The very fact that irrelevant line items can be added to whatever legislation happens to be running through the congress at the time is an affront to the very idea of tranparency of governance. Don’t put a million dollar line item for a museum in a veterans affairs bill just so that it will HAVE to be passed. That is deceitful at best (I use the above listed scenario merely as an illustration of what usually happens).
Nowhere in the constitution does it describe the far-reaching role that our national government has taken (again, note I said ‘taken’, not ‘been given’). Of course, most of this garbage would be stuffed into the ‘general welfare’ clause. Not that any of it ‘promotes the general welfare’ as the preamble to the Constitution states. Most of it encourages the disbursement of even more ‘welfare’ to the dependent class, or merely affects the ‘welfare’ of a politician’s chances at re-election. Why do you think that the government assistance program is called “Welfare”? Could it have been an underhanded way of justifying it under the constitution? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Our government is nothing more than a game. It has been that way for a long time, and I doubt very much that it will change, so long as our nation stands. Should we the people, though, not continue to show our outrage at this type of irresponsible behavior? It is your duty to be outraged. My Senators are #66 and #79 on the full list, which is still higher than #99 and #100, where they should be.
Until Federal spending is brought under strict control, nothing will change and this nation will continue on its downward path to irrelevance and weakness. Any pork is too much. The government of this country owes us an explanation and a full accounting of every dime that they take from us. Anything less is a failure to uphold the confidence of the citizenry. Successful and responsible leadership depends on men and women of character and integrity. If that were the case, none of this under the table spending would even be an issue. That is why elections matter. Only the best, brightest and most upstanding should be given the mantle of governance. It is, short of joining the Armed Forces, the best way to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Oh and for all you government types out there… If I want pork in my neighborhood, I’ll head to Williamson Bros.