On Congresswomen Hahn's reasons (or rationalizations) for voting against raising the debt ceiling (Easyreader, August 1):
“I listened to my constituents, and they overwhelmingly asked me to oppose this deal.”
Which constituents did she listen to exactly? Last time I checked, she was elected on a 55% majority, after barely edging by the second-place contender in the May run-off. And of those 55%, some most likely voted "D" in knee-jerk fashion or were so caught in the so-called assault on a woman's right to choose. The rest seem to believe that growing government involvement in our economy is the way to recovery.
Hahn then states:
"Three weeks ago, the people of my district sent me to Washington to protect Social Security and Medicare and get to work investing in our future and creating jobs."
Protect Social Security and Medicare? If Washington keeps running the way it has, on fumes and beyond capacity, there will be no Social Security or Medicare left to collect. The U.S. Government must cut spending drastically just to continuing payments on those bloated Ponzi schemes.
Hahn then adds: "I cannot support a bill that asks nothing of millionaires and billionaires while asking hardworking Americans already struggling to sacrifice even more.”
Who in their right (or left) mind still believes that raising taxes on the wealthy will generate more revenue? Wealthy people will simply put more of their money in tax shelters and trusts, or hire other wealth-conscious people to secure their wealth from the prying hands of the state. With all of this capital getting locked up, where will the new businesses come from? Who will we look to for " investing in our future and creating jobs? The Government? And with the lack of local job growth that results from higher taxes, "hardworking Americans already struggling" will indeed struggle more.
Despite the flagrant contradictions in her rationale (or rationalization) for not voting for raising the debt ceiling, Hahn has managed to fulfill one promise. She has created jobs. . . for herself and attending office staff, along with opening up a Council seat in Los Angeles--a duty which she should have had the integrity to complete, just like her father who completed a lengthy term as LA County Supervisor.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Hahn's Rationale (or Rationalizations) Part II
From Redondo Beach based "Easy Reader":
"Hahn said she voted against the [debt-ceiling] deal because sentiment in District 36was strongly opposed. The Congresswoman indicated that budget cuts should be accompanied with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans."
Since Hahn coasted into office relying on fringe state-dependent elements throughout Los Angeles City, it is no surprise that she wants to attack the rich and give to the poor, only to make the rich no so much, and the poor. . .well, poorer.
This tired "The Government is here to help" philosophy still stirs reactionary liberals, politicians still hooked on the state as the chief and reliable source of all that is good and great in rescuing the nation's down and out. Yet look at the track record of government (mal)feasance: How many chief executives have been dismissed from the LA County Child Welfare Unit? Why the infighting between LA County CEO Fujioka and the same board which had so enthusiastically hired him? Consider also the abysmal employment in the City of Los Angeles and California state-wide. Has burgeoning government growth have anything better to offer? Even local governments cannot serve their citizens as broadly as before, or never intended to (see Bell, Vernon, and to less clear extent, Montebello).
Public school districts now contract out this basic need to charter organizations, for better or worse. States across the Union are cutting state mandates and responsibilities for the basic reasons that they cannot afford to be all things for all people. Private initiatives are picking up the slack which the public sector inadvertently created.
Currently, Ms. Hahn is still pushing the same failed statist status quo which ushered in the large-scale Great Recession that we are struggling with. When will the voters in the CA-36th step up and demand a less intrusive, less powerful, more limited national government that leaves well enough alone and sticks to the basics outlined in the Constitution?
"Hahn said she voted against the [debt-ceiling] deal because sentiment in District 36was strongly opposed. The Congresswoman indicated that budget cuts should be accompanied with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans."
Since Hahn coasted into office relying on fringe state-dependent elements throughout Los Angeles City, it is no surprise that she wants to attack the rich and give to the poor, only to make the rich no so much, and the poor. . .well, poorer.
This tired "The Government is here to help" philosophy still stirs reactionary liberals, politicians still hooked on the state as the chief and reliable source of all that is good and great in rescuing the nation's down and out. Yet look at the track record of government (mal)feasance: How many chief executives have been dismissed from the LA County Child Welfare Unit? Why the infighting between LA County CEO Fujioka and the same board which had so enthusiastically hired him? Consider also the abysmal employment in the City of Los Angeles and California state-wide. Has burgeoning government growth have anything better to offer? Even local governments cannot serve their citizens as broadly as before, or never intended to (see Bell, Vernon, and to less clear extent, Montebello).
Public school districts now contract out this basic need to charter organizations, for better or worse. States across the Union are cutting state mandates and responsibilities for the basic reasons that they cannot afford to be all things for all people. Private initiatives are picking up the slack which the public sector inadvertently created.
Currently, Ms. Hahn is still pushing the same failed statist status quo which ushered in the large-scale Great Recession that we are struggling with. When will the voters in the CA-36th step up and demand a less intrusive, less powerful, more limited national government that leaves well enough alone and sticks to the basics outlined in the Constitution?
Janice Hahn's Rationale (or Rationalizations)
“I listened to my constituents, and they overwhelmingly asked me to oppose this deal,” Hahn said. “Three weeks ago, the people of my district sent me to Washington to protect Social Security and Medicare and get to work investing in our future and creating jobs. The American people wanted a balanced approach. This is not it. I cannot support a bill that asks nothing of millionaires and billionaires while asking hardworking Americans already struggling to sacrifice even more.”
Which constituents did she listen to exactly? I do not recall getting a call from Ms. Hahn. . did any of you? Last time I checked, she was elected on a 55% majority, after barely edging by the second-place contender in the May run-off. And of those 55%, some most likely voted "D" in knee-jerk fashion, others trembled at the empty moniker of "Tea Party Extremism", or were so caught in the so-called assault on a woman's right to choose. The rest, for the most part, still believe that growing government involvement in our economy is the way to recovery.
She indirectly answers any protest against her discerning the will of the CA-36th:
"Three weeks ago, the people of my district sent me to Washington to protect Social Security and Medicare and get to work investing in our future and creating jobs."
Protect Social Security and Medicare? If Washington keeps running the way it has, on fumes and beyond capacity, there will be no Social Security or Medicare. This Government must cut spending drastically just to continuing payments on those bloated Ponzi schemes.
Regarding the misguided apprehension about The Tea Party Movement, let us recall from out U.S. History classes that fired-up American colonists took on Big Government Mother England to protest taxation without representation. Today, we hear the same Tea Party sentiment today throughout the nation, people who are tired of not finding work because businesses cannot navigate the byzantine regulations pressed upon them; people who are tired of being taxed to pay for someone else's health care and retirement.
Last of all, who in their right (or left) mind still believes that raising taxes on the wealth will generate more revenue? Wealthy people will simply put more of their money in wealth tax shelters and trusts, or hire other wealth-conscious people to secure their wealth from the prying hands of the state. With all of this capital getting locked up, where will the new businesses come from? Who will invest in novel innovation and recovery? The Government?
Despite the flagrant contradictions in her rationale (or rationalization) for not voting for raising the debt ceiling, Hahn has managed to fulfill one promise. She has created jobs for herself and attending office staff, along with opening up a Council seat in Los Angeles--a duty which she should have had the integrity to complete, just like her father who completed a lengthy term as LA County Supervisor.
Which constituents did she listen to exactly? I do not recall getting a call from Ms. Hahn. . did any of you? Last time I checked, she was elected on a 55% majority, after barely edging by the second-place contender in the May run-off. And of those 55%, some most likely voted "D" in knee-jerk fashion, others trembled at the empty moniker of "Tea Party Extremism", or were so caught in the so-called assault on a woman's right to choose. The rest, for the most part, still believe that growing government involvement in our economy is the way to recovery.
She indirectly answers any protest against her discerning the will of the CA-36th:
"Three weeks ago, the people of my district sent me to Washington to protect Social Security and Medicare and get to work investing in our future and creating jobs."
Protect Social Security and Medicare? If Washington keeps running the way it has, on fumes and beyond capacity, there will be no Social Security or Medicare. This Government must cut spending drastically just to continuing payments on those bloated Ponzi schemes.
Regarding the misguided apprehension about The Tea Party Movement, let us recall from out U.S. History classes that fired-up American colonists took on Big Government Mother England to protest taxation without representation. Today, we hear the same Tea Party sentiment today throughout the nation, people who are tired of not finding work because businesses cannot navigate the byzantine regulations pressed upon them; people who are tired of being taxed to pay for someone else's health care and retirement.
Last of all, who in their right (or left) mind still believes that raising taxes on the wealth will generate more revenue? Wealthy people will simply put more of their money in wealth tax shelters and trusts, or hire other wealth-conscious people to secure their wealth from the prying hands of the state. With all of this capital getting locked up, where will the new businesses come from? Who will invest in novel innovation and recovery? The Government?
Despite the flagrant contradictions in her rationale (or rationalization) for not voting for raising the debt ceiling, Hahn has managed to fulfill one promise. She has created jobs for herself and attending office staff, along with opening up a Council seat in Los Angeles--a duty which she should have had the integrity to complete, just like her father who completed a lengthy term as LA County Supervisor.
Reid's Observations (er...Waffle)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reflection on the Raising of the U.S. Federal Debt Ceiling recently passed within hairs-breadth of national default:
“People on the right are upset. People on the left are upset. People in the middle are upset.”
Let's just cut to the chase: We are all upset!
Big Government is a big failure! Refusing to limit the scope of their powers to what the Constitution has outlined, Federal Legislators have spent way beyond the means of this nation. Now they cannot even agree on how not to spend, or they grouse about not being able to spend enough.
Yet rather than caving in to despair over the omnipresent frustration weighing on both sides of the Beltway, the American people should take heart. If outraged liberals and committed conservatives, in growing numbers no less, are both dissatisfied with business as usual, then maybe there is some hope that the era of Big Government is over as we know it.
Case in point: when Liberal Dennis Kucinich and Libertarian Ron Paul are both raising the alarm about the encroachment of the State into our daily lives, then an unlikely coalition of no-longer fringe elements may be just what it takes to stop the spending, limit government, and return state power to its proper place: the states and the people.
“People on the right are upset. People on the left are upset. People in the middle are upset.”
Let's just cut to the chase: We are all upset!
Big Government is a big failure! Refusing to limit the scope of their powers to what the Constitution has outlined, Federal Legislators have spent way beyond the means of this nation. Now they cannot even agree on how not to spend, or they grouse about not being able to spend enough.
Yet rather than caving in to despair over the omnipresent frustration weighing on both sides of the Beltway, the American people should take heart. If outraged liberals and committed conservatives, in growing numbers no less, are both dissatisfied with business as usual, then maybe there is some hope that the era of Big Government is over as we know it.
Case in point: when Liberal Dennis Kucinich and Libertarian Ron Paul are both raising the alarm about the encroachment of the State into our daily lives, then an unlikely coalition of no-longer fringe elements may be just what it takes to stop the spending, limit government, and return state power to its proper place: the states and the people.
Monday, August 1, 2011
"b"ig Government vs. Limited Government
Big Government with a little "b": is that the real enemy? Cutting spending to cut the sheer size of government, yes that is admirable. Yet is that all that Americans should be seeking?
Limited Government: does that mean a federal government which only attends to business in Washington D.C.? Doesn't the Constitution expect the Federal Government to play certain roles in the business and affairs of the states?
Big Government may refer to the physical reach of government. In a nation of fifty diverse states, it is inevitable that the federal government will be big.
Yet the Constitutional never outline how much physical space the federal government would take. The Constitution outlines how many powers Congress may take on, the role of the Presidency, and the existence of a federal judiciary.
Congress must be limited in its scope, not necessary in its size. Post offices by delegation are permitted, Congress has the authority to coin money and print currency. Yet Congress never had the authority to create the Environmental Protection Agency, nor is it permitted to erode the full faith and credit of the currency with massive printing and resulting inflation.
Limited Government at all costs, and let the size of government shrink in turn.
Limited Government: does that mean a federal government which only attends to business in Washington D.C.? Doesn't the Constitution expect the Federal Government to play certain roles in the business and affairs of the states?
Big Government may refer to the physical reach of government. In a nation of fifty diverse states, it is inevitable that the federal government will be big.
Yet the Constitutional never outline how much physical space the federal government would take. The Constitution outlines how many powers Congress may take on, the role of the Presidency, and the existence of a federal judiciary.
Congress must be limited in its scope, not necessary in its size. Post offices by delegation are permitted, Congress has the authority to coin money and print currency. Yet Congress never had the authority to create the Environmental Protection Agency, nor is it permitted to erode the full faith and credit of the currency with massive printing and resulting inflation.
Limited Government at all costs, and let the size of government shrink in turn.
Integrity, Originality, Character, and Freedom
Integrity is more important than originality.
Faith (perseverance) is more important than creativity and imagination, suffice what Albert Einstein may have trumpeted.
Lady Gaga is the epitome of style-over-substance-as-substance. She is fooling fewer people in her ostentatious endeavor. The "Born This Way" superstar changes every time she performs. What way was she born? Does her astounding creativity permit her to define the real nature of character, of freedom in the individual? Hardly.
It's one thing to be different. It's another thing to be different for the sake of being different, or for the sake of entertaining the fickle masses.
It's one thing to be proud of who you are. It's another thing to change who you are so much that no one knows who you are or what you want people to think that you are proud of to being with.
It is better to stick to something worthwhile, to decide the pace that you want to walk in, to decide to incorporate who you are with what you believe, than to change beliefs as if that constitutes something meaningful or awe-inspiring.
It takes integrity to be something different, all the more so because to be different in the fullest sense means being true to that difference rather than changing it over the long-haul.
Therefore, the goal is no longer how different, varied, or wild I can be, since I will have to settle for ever-changing or change into something which will no longer be unsettling. The goal is to decide what you want to be, whether other people like it, hate it, or imitate it. Be faithful to what you have decided is true, whether it stays popular, becomes dull in the eyes of others, or whithers into offense.
Do not settle for being "Born This Way" or born another way. Choose what you are to become. Be what you believe and stay true to it, no matter what others may say.
Faith (perseverance) is more important than creativity and imagination, suffice what Albert Einstein may have trumpeted.
Lady Gaga is the epitome of style-over-substance-as-substance. She is fooling fewer people in her ostentatious endeavor. The "Born This Way" superstar changes every time she performs. What way was she born? Does her astounding creativity permit her to define the real nature of character, of freedom in the individual? Hardly.
It's one thing to be different. It's another thing to be different for the sake of being different, or for the sake of entertaining the fickle masses.
It's one thing to be proud of who you are. It's another thing to change who you are so much that no one knows who you are or what you want people to think that you are proud of to being with.
It is better to stick to something worthwhile, to decide the pace that you want to walk in, to decide to incorporate who you are with what you believe, than to change beliefs as if that constitutes something meaningful or awe-inspiring.
It takes integrity to be something different, all the more so because to be different in the fullest sense means being true to that difference rather than changing it over the long-haul.
Therefore, the goal is no longer how different, varied, or wild I can be, since I will have to settle for ever-changing or change into something which will no longer be unsettling. The goal is to decide what you want to be, whether other people like it, hate it, or imitate it. Be faithful to what you have decided is true, whether it stays popular, becomes dull in the eyes of others, or whithers into offense.
Do not settle for being "Born This Way" or born another way. Choose what you are to become. Be what you believe and stay true to it, no matter what others may say.
Conservatism: RIP in New England?
What to do about the Two Ladies from Maine?
What about Mr. Brown who took down the Democratic Establishment in the Bay State, with an upset victory in a 3-to-1 blue state beholden to the Kennedy clan for nigh fifty years?
Do we simply watch them dissolve along with the rest of the Republican moderates, or do we find a better way to market them to their constituents and segue them into Tea Party principles.
Granted, Lincoln Chafee, former U.S. Senator and Republican from Rhode Island, ran unsuccessfully for reelection as the anti-Bush in 2006. Now, Chafee is serving as the state's Independent Governor. Granted, Christopher Shays, the last Republican Congressman from the New England region, voted against the Bush agenda more times the former New York Senator Hilary Clinton before losing his seat in 2008. These moderates were strictly opportunists, like Arlen Specter.
Naturally, there would be little love lost if wishy-washy moderate Republicans, effete East Coast Conservatives, or ( to the point) RINO Republicans were phased out, as long as they can be reliably replaced with competitive, competent, and consistent conservatives. Arlen Specter switched parties, only to lose the 2010 primary against Sestak and the general election to Tea Party backed Pat Toomey, former Congressman slighted by the Bush Administration in 2004 in favor of the status quo Specter. A similar upset may be in the works, since Senator Olympia Snowe now represents a state where Tea Party insurgence has swept the Governor's mansion and the statehouse. Despite her steady popularity with Democrats, a growing tide of mean-what-you-say conservatism may sweep Snowe away and drive in a more reliable conservative voice to the Senate.
On the other hand, The Tea Party (and all limited government) proponents must keep in mind that Massachusetts Senators Scott Brown rode to power in 2010 primarily to stop Obamacare--which he did. The residents of Boston, MA and environs already have a state medical mandate and want no part of another medical mandate. Otherwise, Brown's record has been moderately acceptable, considering the fact that he is a patch of pink floating over a sea of blue. He deserves all the help he can get from the National Leadership to stay in his seat.
Tea Party purity will come off as piping-hot extremism if not released properly. Sharron Angle was poised to take on and take down Harry Reid, an obnoxious faux-populist who is still leading the charge against the will of the vast majority of Americans. She simply needed more training, more help on the ground, and a more consistent message hitting on the economy without the racial flaps she inadvertently slipped out during the campaign.
Delaware at-large house Rep Mike Castle was a shoo-in for the Senate seat in the First State, only to be undone by a Tea Party purist who failed to resonate with the fiscally-conservative socially-liberal voters from Dover to Wilmington. Christine O'Donnell was simply an unacceptable candidate, not just for poorly framing valuable views as near-extremist, but her sordid forays into Bill-Maher cable TV mayhem and her financial peccadilloes. Mike Castle deserved to win and would have better represented Delaware and the nation.
In 2012, the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement have to weigh carefully the injunction of recently-deceased revivalist of Conservatism William F. Buckley: "Support the Conservative candidate who is most electable." The circumstances on the ground, the focus of the ground troops, and the power of populist ground swelling will best determine whether the Republican party and its Tea Party cohorts should support the moderate incumbent or sponsor a more conservative challenger.
Conservatism, even its in moderate form, is not all but dead in the North East, yet establishment and grass-roots functionaries must decide carefully how close to cut pragmatism and principle when deciding which politician will best promote the needs of the Party and the Nation.
What about Mr. Brown who took down the Democratic Establishment in the Bay State, with an upset victory in a 3-to-1 blue state beholden to the Kennedy clan for nigh fifty years?
Do we simply watch them dissolve along with the rest of the Republican moderates, or do we find a better way to market them to their constituents and segue them into Tea Party principles.
Granted, Lincoln Chafee, former U.S. Senator and Republican from Rhode Island, ran unsuccessfully for reelection as the anti-Bush in 2006. Now, Chafee is serving as the state's Independent Governor. Granted, Christopher Shays, the last Republican Congressman from the New England region, voted against the Bush agenda more times the former New York Senator Hilary Clinton before losing his seat in 2008. These moderates were strictly opportunists, like Arlen Specter.
Naturally, there would be little love lost if wishy-washy moderate Republicans, effete East Coast Conservatives, or ( to the point) RINO Republicans were phased out, as long as they can be reliably replaced with competitive, competent, and consistent conservatives. Arlen Specter switched parties, only to lose the 2010 primary against Sestak and the general election to Tea Party backed Pat Toomey, former Congressman slighted by the Bush Administration in 2004 in favor of the status quo Specter. A similar upset may be in the works, since Senator Olympia Snowe now represents a state where Tea Party insurgence has swept the Governor's mansion and the statehouse. Despite her steady popularity with Democrats, a growing tide of mean-what-you-say conservatism may sweep Snowe away and drive in a more reliable conservative voice to the Senate.
On the other hand, The Tea Party (and all limited government) proponents must keep in mind that Massachusetts Senators Scott Brown rode to power in 2010 primarily to stop Obamacare--which he did. The residents of Boston, MA and environs already have a state medical mandate and want no part of another medical mandate. Otherwise, Brown's record has been moderately acceptable, considering the fact that he is a patch of pink floating over a sea of blue. He deserves all the help he can get from the National Leadership to stay in his seat.
Tea Party purity will come off as piping-hot extremism if not released properly. Sharron Angle was poised to take on and take down Harry Reid, an obnoxious faux-populist who is still leading the charge against the will of the vast majority of Americans. She simply needed more training, more help on the ground, and a more consistent message hitting on the economy without the racial flaps she inadvertently slipped out during the campaign.
Delaware at-large house Rep Mike Castle was a shoo-in for the Senate seat in the First State, only to be undone by a Tea Party purist who failed to resonate with the fiscally-conservative socially-liberal voters from Dover to Wilmington. Christine O'Donnell was simply an unacceptable candidate, not just for poorly framing valuable views as near-extremist, but her sordid forays into Bill-Maher cable TV mayhem and her financial peccadilloes. Mike Castle deserved to win and would have better represented Delaware and the nation.
In 2012, the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement have to weigh carefully the injunction of recently-deceased revivalist of Conservatism William F. Buckley: "Support the Conservative candidate who is most electable." The circumstances on the ground, the focus of the ground troops, and the power of populist ground swelling will best determine whether the Republican party and its Tea Party cohorts should support the moderate incumbent or sponsor a more conservative challenger.
Conservatism, even its in moderate form, is not all but dead in the North East, yet establishment and grass-roots functionaries must decide carefully how close to cut pragmatism and principle when deciding which politician will best promote the needs of the Party and the Nation.
Friedman on Incumbents
"Make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things."--Milton Friedman
Instead of stoking up ribald opposition to take on entrenched incumbents, it's time that
Sharing prior to this comment, Friedman pointed that politicians are in the very simple business of buying votes. Rather than getting frustrated because they do not vote the way that we want them to, tell them what you want. Tell them how they had better vote if they want to get reelected.
Politicians do not go into office to do the will of the people, of their constituents, and in most cases, even of themselves. They go into office to get power and get reelected. It's up to the people to use their power to get politicians to do what they are supposed to do--on behalf of the people.
That is an amoral, not necessarily immoral judgment. The problem is that Americans have for too long expected their representatives to be able to read their minds or at least respect their opinions merely because the pols got into office because of their vote.
Sadly, that is simply not the case. Only when a politician demonstrates by his vote and his utter elitist disdain that he or she will not respect the wishes of the voters, then, and only then . . . "Throw the bums out!"
Instead of stoking up ribald opposition to take on entrenched incumbents, it's time that
Sharing prior to this comment, Friedman pointed that politicians are in the very simple business of buying votes. Rather than getting frustrated because they do not vote the way that we want them to, tell them what you want. Tell them how they had better vote if they want to get reelected.
Politicians do not go into office to do the will of the people, of their constituents, and in most cases, even of themselves. They go into office to get power and get reelected. It's up to the people to use their power to get politicians to do what they are supposed to do--on behalf of the people.
That is an amoral, not necessarily immoral judgment. The problem is that Americans have for too long expected their representatives to be able to read their minds or at least respect their opinions merely because the pols got into office because of their vote.
Sadly, that is simply not the case. Only when a politician demonstrates by his vote and his utter elitist disdain that he or she will not respect the wishes of the voters, then, and only then . . . "Throw the bums out!"
STOP THE SPENDING! (Homer Simpson, Where Are You?)
 |
| Stop the spending! |
Exasperated to distraction, Homer takes to the front of the movie theater and cries out: "Start the movie! Start the movie." Whipping up the crowd with his excitement, he takes off his shirt, waves it around, and keeps shouting: "Start the Movie! Start the movie!" The movie security get nervous, try to chase him off, but he keeps chanting, and the crowd gets wild. Finally, after managing to give chase, with Homer (amazingly enough!) staying ahead, the overweight patriarch of Springfield runs into the poised fist on a golden statue commemorating Tyson-riffing Roderick Tatum.
Homer Simpson's zeal over a movie is laughable, though his frustration is understandable. Yet now, in this country, when will legislators take to the main forum of Congress and start shouting: "Stop the Spending!" Stop the Spending!" Simple: when we all do, throughout the country, in every movie theater. In every public square, when we blog about it, talk about it, demand it up front, tell our neighbors to do the same, get them excited about forcing our Government to "Stop the Spending!"
It's not a crazy concept. Congressmen are trying to get reelected, they want attention, more people in this country are getting fed about with the spending, the deficits, and the debt.
Now, we never find out if Homer's ranting really changed things, but we do that he got a lot of attention for all his rantings.
Now consider all the hollering that the American people have done! Even ultra-left wing liberal Barack Obama is talking about spending cuts! Those Democrats who survived tehe 2010 Republican tsunami are starting to change their tune! If more people stood up and shouted "Stop the Spending!" If more people demanded change, voiced their outrage, registered their upset, then Legislators would heed.
Congressman Paul Ryan was spot-on when he confronted President Obama about the folly of imposing Obamacare-"The American people have been telling you [that they do not want it]. You just have not been listening." After 2010, Obama and Democratic party have no choice but to listen.
If enough of us stand up, take over the auditorium, and shout "Stop the Spending!" there won't be enough guards to make us leave. Congress will have to cooperate! Democracy is about stepping up to leaders, making the right choices the right thing for politicians to vote for, whether they championed the cause before or not.
Rather than suffering one more golden blow to the jaw, like hapless Homer Simpson, let's hit hard against our Congressional leaders, remind them where their power comes from, and get them to "Stop the Spending!"
Jeffersonian Hamiltonianism: The Source
Back to Washington's Administration, first term.
Treasury Secretary wants a strong central government, one that will assume the debts of the nation and restore the full faith and credit of the country to leery investors and wary nations. With his mind ever-trained on building the nation's economy, he wanted investors, businessman, and industrial elites to prosper. Beyond a strong central government with an established central bank, Hamilton envision a United States teeming with innovation and industry, where commerce stretched across the country and throughout the world.
Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, wants to maintain the independence of the states. A tidewater gentryman with a plantation and self-regulating economy, he envisions a nation of gentlemen farmers where every man would own his land and attend to his needs without a meddling federal government interrupting the serenity of it all.
These two visions contain economic and political elements to their implementation.
Economically, Hamilton's vision was viable and welcome. The United States, in spite of the large expanses of arable land, is predominantly and industrial, now post-industrial nation. Jefferson's near Utopian vision of yeoman farmers as far as the eye could see was visionary at best, a fading dream for a dying--and peculiar-institution of slave labor and plantationocracy.
Yet Jefferson's political vision, though currently assaulted in practice, was wise, thorough, and fully constitutional. Unfortunately, Jefferson wanted to assimilate limited government and states' rights with the failing economy of landed aristocracy, a thankfully long-gone way of life which would never have supported the skyrocketing prosperity of the post-bellum United States. This same chasm between political sense and cultural nonsense poisoned the country's view of state's rights when its loudest champions wanted to resort to the doctrine in order to maintain segregation. Even now, unwitting advocates and inane ideologues accuse the Tea Party of atavistic political sensibilities, crypto-racism, and reactionary world-view.
In many ways, Thomas Jefferson's views characterizes the rising concerns of the Tea Party, including the Government's unchecked growth and unwanted encroachment into the affairs of the several states and the people, both of which were supposed to be curtailed by the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution.
Hamilton's economic vision was right on, yet the United States has continued to pursue his political vision, which ironically is hindering the very industrial progress he advocated.
So, rather than doing away with Jeffersonian Hamiltoniansim, let us switch the emphasis and delineation to Hamiltonian Jeffersonism, in which this country continues supporting the economic vision of Hamilton, yet relies extensively on the plan and purpose of Jefferson's hopes--a limited federal government which renounces most of the governing power to the states and abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Treasury Secretary wants a strong central government, one that will assume the debts of the nation and restore the full faith and credit of the country to leery investors and wary nations. With his mind ever-trained on building the nation's economy, he wanted investors, businessman, and industrial elites to prosper. Beyond a strong central government with an established central bank, Hamilton envision a United States teeming with innovation and industry, where commerce stretched across the country and throughout the world.
Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, wants to maintain the independence of the states. A tidewater gentryman with a plantation and self-regulating economy, he envisions a nation of gentlemen farmers where every man would own his land and attend to his needs without a meddling federal government interrupting the serenity of it all.
These two visions contain economic and political elements to their implementation.
Economically, Hamilton's vision was viable and welcome. The United States, in spite of the large expanses of arable land, is predominantly and industrial, now post-industrial nation. Jefferson's near Utopian vision of yeoman farmers as far as the eye could see was visionary at best, a fading dream for a dying--and peculiar-institution of slave labor and plantationocracy.
Yet Jefferson's political vision, though currently assaulted in practice, was wise, thorough, and fully constitutional. Unfortunately, Jefferson wanted to assimilate limited government and states' rights with the failing economy of landed aristocracy, a thankfully long-gone way of life which would never have supported the skyrocketing prosperity of the post-bellum United States. This same chasm between political sense and cultural nonsense poisoned the country's view of state's rights when its loudest champions wanted to resort to the doctrine in order to maintain segregation. Even now, unwitting advocates and inane ideologues accuse the Tea Party of atavistic political sensibilities, crypto-racism, and reactionary world-view.
In many ways, Thomas Jefferson's views characterizes the rising concerns of the Tea Party, including the Government's unchecked growth and unwanted encroachment into the affairs of the several states and the people, both of which were supposed to be curtailed by the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution.
Hamilton's economic vision was right on, yet the United States has continued to pursue his political vision, which ironically is hindering the very industrial progress he advocated.
So, rather than doing away with Jeffersonian Hamiltoniansim, let us switch the emphasis and delineation to Hamiltonian Jeffersonism, in which this country continues supporting the economic vision of Hamilton, yet relies extensively on the plan and purpose of Jefferson's hopes--a limited federal government which renounces most of the governing power to the states and abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)