The United States has grown more schizophrenic about the role of government for a long time.
We have grown accustomed to denouncing the growth of government, yet at the same tolerating, even welcoming it under our noses.
In President Washington's Cabinet, these two views of government crystallized between two competing Fathers of the nation.
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wanted a limited national government in which the states held most of the authority and managed their own affairs. He favored a strict construction of the Constitution, which basically meant that unless the Constitution conferred a power on the United States Government, then the government could not appropriate that power.
In contrast, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton favored a broader, more elastic vision for the country. One where the Federal Government played a strong, large, prominent role in the Republic, directing affairs more . . .directly in the daily lives of the citizenry. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton believe that the "elastic clause" of the Constitution, which maintained that Congress could enact legislation which was both "necessary and proper" to the machinations of the Government, notwithstanding whether that power was specifically delegated in the Constitution.
This competing vision of the United States, large government or small government, has dominated the national political conversation since the beginning of the Republic. A healthy, and often heated though for too long unheeded, discussion, the very nature of federalism implanted in the Constitution makes this ongoing debate both necessary and proper.
So, where do Americans stand on this matter? Frankly, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. Because of Free Market Economists like Milton Friedman and his indirect disciples Like President Ronald Reagan, Americans have been taught to resent big government bureaucracy which impinges on freedom and individual ingenuity, which throttles the states and municipalities at the expense of a burgeoning federal government, a Leviathan dedicated to amassing more power and wealth at the expense of Joe and Jane taxpayer. In this sense, we walk in lock-step with Thomas Jefferson.
On the other hand, most Americans cherish their handouts, their pensions, their benefits, their entitlements, which when implemented by Congress were designed to be a mere subsidy for American independence. Americans want their individual Congressman and Senators to steer tax dollars and political influence to their districts, maintain army bases and military operations providing jobs for the local, albeit at the growing cost of taxpayers across the country. When there is an economic downturn, voters want the federal government to step in, punish Wall Street, regulate stocks and bonds, put up more defenses to make sure that markets across the country never fail again. Plus with the growing number of state jobs, more citizens-cum-state employees do not want to see government to cease offer many sservices, even though the Constitution never delegated Congress to appropriate those powers In essence, Alexander Hamilton holds sway over the American will, if not the American mind.
Without a doubt, the American people have a love-hate relationship with big government. In the past, especially during the extended era of progressive progression from FDR to LBJ, Americans happily received help from Washington. Yet at this point, whether you love-love government, love-hate government, or hate-hate the expanding role of the federal government--both by demanding its reduction and really pushing for it--Big Government, from Washington to Trenton to Sacramento, is simply unsustainable.
This Jefferson-Hamilton hypocritical economic-political schizophrenia is reaching the breaking point in this country. Just as more than one hundred years ago, this nation could no longer endure "half free, half slave," the American people can no longer labor under the inherent delusion of "Jeffersonian Hamiltonianism."
Citizens are out of work, they cannot pay income taxes without an income, and the state cannot collect sales taxes when everyone is selling but no one is buying. They have up to know depended on Uncle Sam and his cohorts across the fifty states to step in and bridge the gap between recession and recovery, still prattling away about the evils of government growth yet delighting in the last-minute hand-outs which rescue the seemingly down-trodden and down-and-out.
Yet the uncompromisable dissonance between wanting less government with one hand, and expecting more with the other, cannot endure for much longer.
No matter where one stands on this issue, Hamilton's legacy of strong central government is wilting the face of Jefferson's ideal vision. Yet what happened to cause such discordant philosophies to merge, and how do we correct the minds of the voters across the nation once and for all to forsake demanding more from a government that has less to give--less of your time, energy, and money , that is.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Joe Scaroborough, the Fat White Pink Boys, and Etienne de la Boetie
Civil Disobedience is sometimes nothing more than refusing to participate.
Do not pay your taxes, as Thoreau did, when he sat in jail for refusing to give money waging an illegal war in Mexico.
Etienne de la Boetie, Renaissance darling to the Libertarian movement, penned a moving work which probed a fundamental question: Why obey? Why follow the orders of the state? If the state offends the subjects, why not "not obey"? Do not pay taxes, and the state loses its fiscal force to rule. . .
One reason: the many state functionaries who profit form the State despoiling the masses, the Fat White Pink Boys who have no interest in the apparatus of the state being shut down. They collect their hefty, do-nothing salaries, they order the real movers and shakers throughout the world, and they even dictate to lobbyists, who dictate to elected officials how to vote and who to support.
They are the real monsters in Washington, the biggest, fattest, whitest, and pinkest reason why the State grows. Even though the Gipper crowed: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem!", we need to focus on what is the source, the core of this decay--the mindless, faceless bureaucracy leeching off the teats of the Federal system.
Do not pay your taxes, as Thoreau did, when he sat in jail for refusing to give money waging an illegal war in Mexico.
Etienne de la Boetie, Renaissance darling to the Libertarian movement, penned a moving work which probed a fundamental question: Why obey? Why follow the orders of the state? If the state offends the subjects, why not "not obey"? Do not pay taxes, and the state loses its fiscal force to rule. . .
One reason: the many state functionaries who profit form the State despoiling the masses, the Fat White Pink Boys who have no interest in the apparatus of the state being shut down. They collect their hefty, do-nothing salaries, they order the real movers and shakers throughout the world, and they even dictate to lobbyists, who dictate to elected officials how to vote and who to support.
They are the real monsters in Washington, the biggest, fattest, whitest, and pinkest reason why the State grows. Even though the Gipper crowed: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem!", we need to focus on what is the source, the core of this decay--the mindless, faceless bureaucracy leeching off the teats of the Federal system.
Joe Scaroborough and the Fat White Pink Boys
Former Congressman Joe Scarborough identified the biggest threat to the American People, also the biggest roadblock to real reform: the teeming millions of bureaucratic minions who live off the government dole, collecting six-figure salaries to regulate the chaos. They do not want the Welfare State to end because they depend on the Welfare state for their livelihood! Yet they are not the welfare queens and food stamp junkies, they are the office staff of the office staff of the office staff of the Executive Departments and Congressional Committees who get by own tax-payer. Nameless, faceless, normless, they collect a check to keep the Federal Government Dysfunction slouching along.
Scarborough aptly named these swine: Fat White Pink Boys. These pigs engorge themselves at the public trough on our dime (and dollar, but who's counting, right?), doing nothing, yet getting paid more and more for the unearned, undeserved privilege of doing nothing..
The American people are tired of throwing their taxes before these swine, only to be trampled with unending regulation, taxation, and public invasion into our private lives.
The Fat White Pink Boys must be done away with once and for all. In the words of a recently corralled Fat White Pink Boy, Robert Rizzo: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. With the national debt soaring past $14 trillion, these hogs are ready to fry!
Scarborough aptly named these swine: Fat White Pink Boys. These pigs engorge themselves at the public trough on our dime (and dollar, but who's counting, right?), doing nothing, yet getting paid more and more for the unearned, undeserved privilege of doing nothing..
The American people are tired of throwing their taxes before these swine, only to be trampled with unending regulation, taxation, and public invasion into our private lives.
The Fat White Pink Boys must be done away with once and for all. In the words of a recently corralled Fat White Pink Boy, Robert Rizzo: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. With the national debt soaring past $14 trillion, these hogs are ready to fry!
Debt Ceiling Dance: About to End? My Foot!
In the name of not kicking the debt can down the road, that is inevitably what the United States Congress did, again, again, again. And is doing again.
Yes, the deal just brokered by leaders will cut a trillion dollars in spending. No, it will not raise taxes. And no, it did not make everyone (anyone?) happy.
But neither has it solved the long-term debt dilemma still plaguing this nation.
We must get serious about reform across the board. Government has a simple mandate: protect our right, secure our borders, and give everything else to the states and to the people.
Did we hear anything about the federal government putting down once and for all the bloated departments which have been sucking the life out of this nation? Was there any talk of reforming the tax code and cutting all the welfare and corporate subsidies which drag down the economy at the expense of a few well-connected businessmen and lobbyists?
Yes, there will be yet another reform commission, which will recommend the same political poison which was offered and passed over from the last Blue Ribbon Commission. Legislators will swear to cut more over five, ten years, by which time either most of them will already by out of office, or those promises will be out of the memory of the American people.
The Debt Ceiling Dance is still in full-swing, the same tunes playing, the same dancers gaming, yet the American people are fed up with just blaming the same names. We want to show to stop, we want the dance to end, and we want the government to get back to doing its irreducible, constitutional minimum!
Yes, the deal just brokered by leaders will cut a trillion dollars in spending. No, it will not raise taxes. And no, it did not make everyone (anyone?) happy.
But neither has it solved the long-term debt dilemma still plaguing this nation.
We must get serious about reform across the board. Government has a simple mandate: protect our right, secure our borders, and give everything else to the states and to the people.
Did we hear anything about the federal government putting down once and for all the bloated departments which have been sucking the life out of this nation? Was there any talk of reforming the tax code and cutting all the welfare and corporate subsidies which drag down the economy at the expense of a few well-connected businessmen and lobbyists?
Yes, there will be yet another reform commission, which will recommend the same political poison which was offered and passed over from the last Blue Ribbon Commission. Legislators will swear to cut more over five, ten years, by which time either most of them will already by out of office, or those promises will be out of the memory of the American people.
The Debt Ceiling Dance is still in full-swing, the same tunes playing, the same dancers gaming, yet the American people are fed up with just blaming the same names. We want to show to stop, we want the dance to end, and we want the government to get back to doing its irreducible, constitutional minimum!
Born this Way? No Way, José! Part IV
I was not born with innate super-stardom. I was not granted gifts to achieve superstardom. My Mommy and Daddy cannot declare superstardom on me.
Then perhaps I am a superstar because I have overcome major obstacles in my life?
Yes, if I can stand up to bullies, take on evil dictators, slay dragons in my spare time, then that makes me a super star. It's not just what I have, it's not just what I do with what I have, it's what I accomplish the face of adversity.
Yet what do I do when there are no dragons to slay, when there are no enemies to fight?
And look at all the heroes throughout history who stood up to invading armies, who fought the good fight, who saved their homelands, who brought untold wealth to themselves and their families. They foundered in their private lives. Because of emptiness, because of dissolute behavior, because of minor flaws which eventually overwhelmed them, what do they have to say for all their successes. Even Presidents, who live fairly moral lives after their time in office, spend more time defending poor decisions, regretting good ones, or ultimately neglecting the difference between forgetting the good and the bad that they every did.
So much for acclaim and achievement. None of this can make OR maintain a superstar.
Then perhaps I am a superstar because I have overcome major obstacles in my life?
Yes, if I can stand up to bullies, take on evil dictators, slay dragons in my spare time, then that makes me a super star. It's not just what I have, it's not just what I do with what I have, it's what I accomplish the face of adversity.
Yet what do I do when there are no dragons to slay, when there are no enemies to fight?
And look at all the heroes throughout history who stood up to invading armies, who fought the good fight, who saved their homelands, who brought untold wealth to themselves and their families. They foundered in their private lives. Because of emptiness, because of dissolute behavior, because of minor flaws which eventually overwhelmed them, what do they have to say for all their successes. Even Presidents, who live fairly moral lives after their time in office, spend more time defending poor decisions, regretting good ones, or ultimately neglecting the difference between forgetting the good and the bad that they every did.
So much for acclaim and achievement. None of this can make OR maintain a superstar.
Born this Way? No Way, José! Part III
It would seem that Lady Gaga is more off than on, then. Superstars are made, then, if they cannot be born. Or at least they have to work out what was born into them. Fine, I am not all that because of my genetics--black, brown, white, whatever--and I am not all that because my Mommy tells me so.
Then perhaps it's the gifts, the talents, the skills which I am endowed with--they help me to become a superstar, and I just fall in line with it.
Yet skill, like anything else that causes one to excel, is learned, not in-born, bred in, burned.
Even if parents, teachers, siblings, friends, show us the way, where do we get the power to do well? How do we excel with all the knowledge which we have received? What happens when we fail? Are we then no longer skilled?
Then perhaps it's the gifts, the talents, the skills which I am endowed with--they help me to become a superstar, and I just fall in line with it.
Yet skill, like anything else that causes one to excel, is learned, not in-born, bred in, burned.
Even if parents, teachers, siblings, friends, show us the way, where do we get the power to do well? How do we excel with all the knowledge which we have received? What happens when we fail? Are we then no longer skilled?
Born this Way? No Way, José! Part II
Lady Gaga thinks she's a superstar because her Mommy told her so. And she's more than happy to tell us all about It.
What was Mommy's state of mind at the time? What does the Gaga-Mommy say now? Is it really best to base our best on someone else's opinion, no matter how close they are to us?
People who depend on other people to define who they are will inevitably be frustrated, if not confused and hurt in this life. Mommy says nice things to you one day, then because of bad mood yells at you the next. Are you now no longer a "superstar"? If Mommy praises you, then gets drunk behind the couch for an hour straight, do you really care that she thinks the world of you?
Parents love to tell their children they are wonderful. What motivates this fulsome praise, in part, is simple egoism. "You are my child. I brought you into the world. You are fabulous because you are a part of me." Yet parents are hardly the final say on who you are and who you can be. Consider all the people in the world who have been abandoned, despised, or even abused by their parents, yet they did not let that stop them from achieving what they wanted in this world.
The world at large will never be impressed with where you come from. The world owes you nothing, yet will stop at nothing to take from you. If anything else, whether it's our parents or our customers, people compliment us, or rather flatter us, because they want something.
This is not necessarily a cynical revelation, for how can one person's praise raise a person above himself when we cannot better ourselves by just being who we are.
What do we say to a child who fails? "You're fabulous!" What do we say to a child who has broken the rules? "You're fabulous!" Fulsome praise grows vapid very quickly.
Even kids know when they have failed, and they grow to despise people, especially their parents, who praise them for anything and everything. What is the point of doing anything if Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa think highly of me no matter what? Even worse, what do we do with the flowing praise of our family who doles it out an everyone? If my sister, my brother, my uncle, aunt, second cousin twice-removed is also superstar, then what exactly am I?
No, if I am a superstar, it won't be because my parents tell me so, or anyone else, for than matter.
What was Mommy's state of mind at the time? What does the Gaga-Mommy say now? Is it really best to base our best on someone else's opinion, no matter how close they are to us?
People who depend on other people to define who they are will inevitably be frustrated, if not confused and hurt in this life. Mommy says nice things to you one day, then because of bad mood yells at you the next. Are you now no longer a "superstar"? If Mommy praises you, then gets drunk behind the couch for an hour straight, do you really care that she thinks the world of you?
Parents love to tell their children they are wonderful. What motivates this fulsome praise, in part, is simple egoism. "You are my child. I brought you into the world. You are fabulous because you are a part of me." Yet parents are hardly the final say on who you are and who you can be. Consider all the people in the world who have been abandoned, despised, or even abused by their parents, yet they did not let that stop them from achieving what they wanted in this world.
The world at large will never be impressed with where you come from. The world owes you nothing, yet will stop at nothing to take from you. If anything else, whether it's our parents or our customers, people compliment us, or rather flatter us, because they want something.
This is not necessarily a cynical revelation, for how can one person's praise raise a person above himself when we cannot better ourselves by just being who we are.
What do we say to a child who fails? "You're fabulous!" What do we say to a child who has broken the rules? "You're fabulous!" Fulsome praise grows vapid very quickly.
Even kids know when they have failed, and they grow to despise people, especially their parents, who praise them for anything and everything. What is the point of doing anything if Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa think highly of me no matter what? Even worse, what do we do with the flowing praise of our family who doles it out an everyone? If my sister, my brother, my uncle, aunt, second cousin twice-removed is also superstar, then what exactly am I?
No, if I am a superstar, it won't be because my parents tell me so, or anyone else, for than matter.
Born this Way? No Way, José!
Lady Gaga, she makes her fans go "Gaga".
Her latest hit "Born this Way," hit so hard, that even "Weird Al" Yankovic couldn't pass up an opportunity to lampoon the song.
And lampoon it he did! "Perform this Way" exposes more than just ridicules. For a woman who prides herself on being different and expressing herself, how come she has to dress up as someone different every time she takes the stage? By her own admission, why does she have to get high on pot to cut a new song? Reality may bite, but ignoring it won't take away its sting.
Are we really entitled to think of ourselves as supper-stars, why? Is it because we are born super-stars?
Even Gaga has to admit, stardom is conferred on us. Shakespeare was half-right: "We are born --with the potential to be--great, we achieve greatness, yet we ultimately must have greatness thrust upon us. But it isn't something born static-innate in our system.
For one thing, we should not be celebrating who we are because we were "born this way".
Nothing is more infuriating and depressing than the "ethnic-rah-rah" which passes for confidence and self-esteem these days.
"I'm all that because I am black!" "I'm brown, and I'm proud!" "Kiss me, I'm Irish!" The nauseating self-promotion goes on and on.
Why should anyone be proud of something that they were born into, which they had nothing to do with initiating in the first place? I had no say in whether my parents were black, white, brown, yellow, or any other color of the rainbow. If we take pride in anything, it necessarily follows that it must be something that we had something to do with.
Besides, "Black" for one person may be "white" to another. "Scot (Scottish) is just another Gaelic term for "Irish." So, who, or what, is really black? Will the real Irishman really stand up? Others have glibly joked that anyone who has been oppressed or kicked around by the State in one way, shape, or form is Irish!
You cannot define yourself, let along celebrate yourself, when you do not know who you are, or when who you are changes with every person you meet.
Her latest hit "Born this Way," hit so hard, that even "Weird Al" Yankovic couldn't pass up an opportunity to lampoon the song.
And lampoon it he did! "Perform this Way" exposes more than just ridicules. For a woman who prides herself on being different and expressing herself, how come she has to dress up as someone different every time she takes the stage? By her own admission, why does she have to get high on pot to cut a new song? Reality may bite, but ignoring it won't take away its sting.
Are we really entitled to think of ourselves as supper-stars, why? Is it because we are born super-stars?
Even Gaga has to admit, stardom is conferred on us. Shakespeare was half-right: "We are born --with the potential to be--great, we achieve greatness, yet we ultimately must have greatness thrust upon us. But it isn't something born static-innate in our system.
For one thing, we should not be celebrating who we are because we were "born this way".
Nothing is more infuriating and depressing than the "ethnic-rah-rah" which passes for confidence and self-esteem these days.
"I'm all that because I am black!" "I'm brown, and I'm proud!" "Kiss me, I'm Irish!" The nauseating self-promotion goes on and on.
Why should anyone be proud of something that they were born into, which they had nothing to do with initiating in the first place? I had no say in whether my parents were black, white, brown, yellow, or any other color of the rainbow. If we take pride in anything, it necessarily follows that it must be something that we had something to do with.
Besides, "Black" for one person may be "white" to another. "Scot (Scottish) is just another Gaelic term for "Irish." So, who, or what, is really black? Will the real Irishman really stand up? Others have glibly joked that anyone who has been oppressed or kicked around by the State in one way, shape, or form is Irish!
You cannot define yourself, let along celebrate yourself, when you do not know who you are, or when who you are changes with every person you meet.
Letter to a Local Liberal
Sir:
I know you are a liberal (jerk, knee-jerk, or well-informed, I won't judge! :)).
We probably do not see eye to eye on many things. But wouldn't you agree that private initiative and local control does better for the American Citizen than Leviathan Federal Government?!
And another thing I am getting tired of (are you, too?): all the rah-rah about Ronald Reagan among Republicans!
I'm glad the Gipper got people to question the role of government in our lives. But the guy sure didn't do much about it!
Current historians are even questioning whether the massive expenditures in the armed forces really brought down the Soviet Union!
At any rate, all the deficit spending that is bankrupting this country will send us into the deep, no matter what our view of government may be.
Instead of framing fiscal sanity as right or left, why can't we all just mind our own business, pay our own debts, and keep the government out our lives as much as possible? It seems to me that's what the United States Constitution spelled out so succinctly nearly two hundred years ago.
I know you are a liberal (jerk, knee-jerk, or well-informed, I won't judge! :)).
We probably do not see eye to eye on many things. But wouldn't you agree that private initiative and local control does better for the American Citizen than Leviathan Federal Government?!
And another thing I am getting tired of (are you, too?): all the rah-rah about Ronald Reagan among Republicans!
I'm glad the Gipper got people to question the role of government in our lives. But the guy sure didn't do much about it!
Current historians are even questioning whether the massive expenditures in the armed forces really brought down the Soviet Union!
At any rate, all the deficit spending that is bankrupting this country will send us into the deep, no matter what our view of government may be.
Instead of framing fiscal sanity as right or left, why can't we all just mind our own business, pay our own debts, and keep the government out our lives as much as possible? It seems to me that's what the United States Constitution spelled out so succinctly nearly two hundred years ago.
Republicans: Go Beyond the Gipper
President Ronald Reagan helped set the debate for limited government.
He ushered in sweeping tax cuts.
But what did he do about entitlement reform and federal spending? Not much.
We are glad for his efforts to force the American people to rethink the role of government. However, the growth of government slowed during his administration, but it did not stop.
Let us not forget, however, that it was an Arkansas Governor of questionable integrity (prodded by a galvanized Congressional opposition) who signed welfare reform into law, helped balance the federal budget, and instituted a much-needed (yet short-lived) line-time veto.
We need a chief executive who will actually gut entitlements and cut spending, not just talk about it. It is not enough to hate the machinery of government while allowing it to keep clunking along at full blast. We need to use the proper systems of government to fulfill its proper role: protect our rights, secure our borders, and give everything else back to the states and the people.
Whether Democrat or Republican, a chief executive who will do what is in the best interests of the United States--that is what the American People need. Mr. President, cut the spending, decentralize power, and limit the encroachment of the State into our daily lives.
He ushered in sweeping tax cuts.
But what did he do about entitlement reform and federal spending? Not much.
We are glad for his efforts to force the American people to rethink the role of government. However, the growth of government slowed during his administration, but it did not stop.
Let us not forget, however, that it was an Arkansas Governor of questionable integrity (prodded by a galvanized Congressional opposition) who signed welfare reform into law, helped balance the federal budget, and instituted a much-needed (yet short-lived) line-time veto.
We need a chief executive who will actually gut entitlements and cut spending, not just talk about it. It is not enough to hate the machinery of government while allowing it to keep clunking along at full blast. We need to use the proper systems of government to fulfill its proper role: protect our rights, secure our borders, and give everything else back to the states and the people.
Whether Democrat or Republican, a chief executive who will do what is in the best interests of the United States--that is what the American People need. Mr. President, cut the spending, decentralize power, and limit the encroachment of the State into our daily lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)