How cute, Obama can channel his inner Al Green. So we can add singing to his list of talents, in addition to reading off a TelePrompTer and dancing around issues. Nothing like pandering to the base. Regardless of how hip the POTUS is; it doesn’t account for his failed policies and overall lack of leadership. Anyone can be a manager; it’s another thing to be leader and produce a positive result.
Make no mistake should President Obama take the field on Election Day, November 6, 2012, the United States of America will cease to exist as we know it. His administration will quicken their pace of dismantling the country faster than a NASCAR Pit Crew can change four tires. The free market system has already been crippled by the current administrations policies but post 11/6/12, it will come to a grinding halt. President Obama will dance a jig on the grave of Adam Smith and leave nothing less than a debt laden third world consumer plantation. His wife will be so proud.
The race for the GOP Presidential nomination resembles a bloody family feud. One should know never to air ones families dirty laundry for the world or as in the Godfathers series, to “never talk bad about the family.” In politics; particularly in the digital age; there isn’t that luxury. Despite the desire of the mainstream media to paint the GOP field as various cast members of a episode of Seinfeld; the airing of grievances and feats of strength (caucuses/primaries) will soon come to a close. The unification of conservatives will be quick, they won’t worry about the mule but the wagon will be loaded.
I don’t understand. Government is unwilling to break the “social compact” they have with seniors in terms of Social Security and Entitlement programs. Such an affront to our morals would apparently cause seniors to choose between food and medicine. But they’re willing to re-work actual contracts – whether they are education loan terms or re-negotiated home mortgage lending practices – to secure some special interest votes.
Here’s the conservative motto for the 2011 primary season through the general election in November, 2012:
We may not have our Ronald Reagan yet, but you guys definitely have your Jimmy Carter!!
You heard it at the Middle Resolution blog first!
Copyright October 20, 2011, 9:13 pm
All rights reserved
One Virginia congressman said recently “I had to re-learn the meaning of “compromise” when I got here. Up in DC, it means “everybody gets everything they want”.”
That’s exactly the situation when there’s an unlimited supply of money to dole out, and it’s exactly the root of our fiscal discipline problems right now.
It used to be the case that opposing viewpoints came to the table with two sets of ideas and engaged in the process of compromise. If you make me remove this, then you have to remove that. I’ve got to keep that, so I’ll let you keep the other thing. Let’s meet in the middle and craft a bill which probably nobody loves, but nearly everybody can live with.
Let’s all wax poetic about the idea of Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan tipping back a few brews together after the workday wrangling was done. Does anybody think Harry Reid and John Boehner would even suffer each other long enough to pick up a burger from the drive-thru?
Unfortunately, that process has been lost over the last several years, and the Congressional representatives today are dealing with a much different system.
The current operation is to have special interest wonks write your bill. Then marshal the troops on your side of the aisle and count the votes you know you’ve got. Then go out and buy the votes you need to get to 218 or 51. Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid, whatever it takes. The minority is completely left out of the process, and the bill is so one-sided that it is almost unrecognizable to a near-majority of the citizenry. The best representative is the one who holds out the longest and gets funding for the biggest bridge to nowhere in return for his or her vote. It’s despicable when you really think about it.
The idea of compromise has gotten a bad rap recently. The unspoken full phrase is “compromise (your principles)”, at which everybody holds their nose. You can compromise without compromising your principles. This isn’t an Eagles fan and a Redskins fan agreeing to root for the Cowboys. It’s not having somebody who wants to cut off your hand and convincing them that three fingers is a suitable middle ground. Compromise shouldn’t be a four-letter word, and you shouldn’t have to abandon your principles to participate in it.
Is now the time to re-learn the graceful dance of compromise? Do we have representatives who are able or, even more, willing to do it? Is the partisan political process so acidic, the bickering so deafening, and the party ranks closed so tight, that it is even possible??
I hope it’s worth a try.
Outside of religious liberty or liberty in general; capitalism/free markets were sautéing in the minds of the founders. Adam Smith’s, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was surely on their respective reading lists. Fast forward to the current dispensation in the Commonwealth, as Governor McDonnell and Lt. Governor Bolling, have been resetting the course for free market and private enterprise. Nothing new but they should be applauded for calling upon the collective spirit of the foundation of Virginia and free markets; which date back to 1607. However, one can take a step further back to 1606, when The London Company (Charter of the Virginia Company of London) in its infancy was established by royal charter by James I of England, on April 10, 1606 with the purpose of establishing colonial settlements inNorth America.
The settlement of Jamestown; despite early failures did prove to be beneficial, productive and a fundamental exercise/success in classical economics.The Virginia Company needed labor. Voluntary settlers in exchange for seven years of labor for the company they were provided passage, food, protection and land ownership. Not exactly a pay check but par for the course by the day’s standard. Not to mention the unlimited opportunity which lay ahead of the enterprise. These settlerswere employees and their job was to make a profit for their employer. They knew the risks involved and exercised their agency to undertake the effort. In no way can one compare today’s work environment to the brutal existence of the early settlers. However, as with any early business adventure, the risk/reward is great. The colony did grow, receive an additional charter and in time industry flourished. The Virginia Company despite success did incur debt, people didn’t pay bills and they suffered from bad public relations. Just as it is today, The Virginia Company had to deal with political infighting and financial woes as well. Was it a great business model, perhaps not but it helped lay the foundation for the greatest country the modern world has ever seen. Shame the Occupy Wall Street “protesters” can’t travel back in time. How would they fair back in 1607 during the Starving Times at Jamestown without an ipad, Starbucks latte and smart phone. Just how industrious would they be? How fast would it take compared to today’s standards to make a latte? Perhaps they should put themselves into the context of 1607 on the banks of the James River to see how wonderful our society is despite its flaws.
Where would society be without entrepreneurs and corporations whose initial investment, assumption of the risk/financial catastrophe and without the concept of a profit? All one needs to do is remove the mask of self entitlement and take a look around. We have been doing it here inVirginia since 1607 and it works.
The balance between local, state and federal laws has been the center of debate since the conception of the United States of America. Whether a constitutional scholar, Supreme Court Justice, President, member of the House/Senate, or common citizen; the debate has lead to many legal and political battles. Despite the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution; tension remains high regarding the nature of the central government’s relationship to the states. This tension at times is unseen by the public eye, however; perceived by many to be the catalyst for the Civil War, in recent times due to the Obama Administrations push for Universal Healthcare, the Debt Ceiling and for the call for a second stimulus package. One could even add to the pile due to the consistent abuses of power committed by all three branches of the Federal Government. This is not a new battle but one that has been smoldering since the first meetings of the Continental Congress.
Consider Sir William Blackstone, in Commentaries of the Laws of England, who defined law as, “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.” Not rocket science even, however; in this period of history, the “supreme power,” was the sovereign power of the crown. Blackstone believed that the sovereign and legislature to be equals. Thus these powers were not indivisible. The sovereign could only create other units of power; and even those units that were created were completely subordinate. Prior to 1688, the Crown was the sovereign power of Great Britain, laws were created by estates and laws were enforced through a court system. It wasn’t until 1701, that the Act of Settlement, that Parliament gained supremacy and earned “the triumph of English Liberty.”
Due to this doctrine of indivisibility, a power hard-won, Parliament could never fully compromise. Thus after 1763, colonial challenges by English Colonists were unacceptable. The period known in the colonies as “benign neglect” had fostered a “de-facto system of divided sovereignty.” A large portion of the colonial populace appealed to a higher law; others traced their rights back in terms of Englishmen, back to the Magna Carta, to time immemorial, i.e., “those rights included the principle that no person could be deprived of property without his consent, in person or through his representatives. American colonists were represented in their own legislatures; not in Parliament and that limited the powers of each. Some areas, such as trade within the empire, were property, the concern of Parliament, but just as a matter of convenience.”
The gap between American and English positions was irreconcilable. In a 1774 debated, John Adams stated that colonists were only bond to laws by “cheerful consent.” Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchison believed, “no line can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies.” Adams rebuttal was, “if there is no such line, the consequence is either that the colonies are vassals of Parliament, or that they are totally independent.” In the end what broke the colonies away from the British Empire was the inability to agree on the “laws and nature of sovereignty.” Even after the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress was handed the responsibility as agents for each state, conducting war, diplomatic relations with foreign powers, however; by Blackstone’s definition the states held sovereign power. Due to operating in a period of war, there wasn’t much thought about this concept; Congress became divided between delegates who favored expansion of the central powers and those who fought for the rights of states.
The Founders at this time begin to think of a way to logically divide the concept of sovereignty, by dividing it at various levels. Each level would have certain responsibilities with inherent power to carry them out. The initial failure was the lack of power granted under the Articles of Confederation to carry out, “coercive powers” to carry out various responsibilities. The Constitution did solidify the broad powers of government within limited spheres and created a truly institutionalized system of sovereignty never seen before in history. Thus the doctrine of states rights was born, as early defenders felt their new doctrine was needed to prevent the “concentration of power in a leviathan government.” Too much power concentrated in a remote location was the definition of tyranny. The opposite view held by nationalists during our nation’s infancy felt that action by a strong central government “was vital to the nation to fulfill its promise and destiny, attaining wealth and stature.”