You're Fired!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

Only a quick post here. Above is a link to a story just coming across the wires. The Obama administration has asked the CEO of General Motors Rick Wagoner to resign and will be making an announcement as to what will happen with the American auto industry as a whole. Have we now gotten to the point that the government is going to put their own people in charge of certain industries? That is not a free market economy. That is socialism. Just think, Joseph Stalin did the same thing.

It’s Not Just a One Party Problem

If one has read through all of my previous posts, and continues to read the ones which are forthcoming, one should notice that I have not passed blame for the American situation on any one party in particular. And there is a very simple reason for this: both parties are to blame. I have mentioned one party in one article to clarify why the name they have taken is a complete and total misnomer, as they do not follow the tenets of the philosophy that the liberal school traditionally holds. But on to my point.

This crisis is not one that was forged by any single political faction. Both have equally been facilitators of this debacle, the only change being the shift in power from one party to the other. But neither is doing anything to help get this country out of the mire that it was fallen into. Instead, there are just trying to outdo the other party across the aisle and pass all the blame on them, claiming that they are not responsible, but the other side is. They launch salvo after salvo and all that they do is destroy their own credibility, and with it goes the respect that this nation once used to hold in the world. They are doing more harm than good to this country.

Across the United States, men and women are rallying at modern day "tea parties," protesting the irresponsibility of our government and their failure to represent the wants, needs and interests of the American people. That have failed in their duty to "promote the general welfare" as the Constitution instructs them to do, and it is time that the American people stand up and actually do something about it.

Whether it be state, gubernatorial or the midterm elections that come up in 2010, it is time that the we, the American people, speak up by going out in droves and voting. Do not go out and just vote a party ticket, because just because that candidate represents the party you are a part of, or agree with, that does not mean they are the best choice to go to Washington. The people need to actually look at the positions and stances that the candidates are holding to. If they are just spouting the same old rhetoric that one party is bad, and they are good, that isn't enough. If they do not purport to represent the peoples interests if they are elected, if they do not really listen to what their constituents have to say and are just looking for a start on the road to political power, then by all means please leave their box on the ballot unchecked. Support the candidate who will promise to represent you in Congress, and not just be another party hack. And if they do get to Washington, hold them to what they said they promised to do. When they do what is not in the best interests of the people, let them know your displeasure. That is the only way to keep them accountable.

If there is any one thing that the American people need to know, it is this: the government is responsible to the people, not vice versa. The only reason those men and women are there are because all Americans can't be. Hold them to their promises. Keep them accountable. Accountability is the key to good representation. Party does not matter, as long as the interests of the people and the good of the country, which should be one and the same, are being met.

Change We Can Truly Believe In

When the Founding Fathers formed the present arrangement for the government of the United States, it was done with the best of intentions and under the presumption that moral and virtuous men would be elected to represent the people in Congress. Unfortunately, time has changed the way the United States government works. And there are some definite changes that must be made.

In the Constitution, there were no term limits set for any of the elected officials, be them Representatives, Senators or the President. Term limits were not instituted for the office of the President until 1951, and as of yet none have been set for either members of the two houses of Congress. And while in the early years of the United States this might not have been seen by some as such a big problem, today, it is becoming one. In those formative years, this country was made up of thirteen states that were all along one coast. Now the United States extends from one coast to the other and contains fifty states, and this has brought about an unseen crisis in the way the government is being run.

The men and women who go to Washington are sent there to represent the people and interests of their district. When an individual is running for office for the first time, they normally have direct contact with the voters of that district they are trying to represent. They listen to the needs of the people and what they want out of their representative in Washington. If they win the election, that person is more likely to do their best to represent their constituents in their first term in office. After two years, they run again, and if the people feel that they were represented well, they may just return the said person to office for a second term.

And herein lies the problem. Continuous election of a person to sit in Congress creates a lust for power and a distancing of oneself from the constituents of the district one represents. One objection that was made to the non-inclusion of term limits on representatives to Congress was made in a series of letters known as the Federalist Farmer. In letter 11, the author says that "in a government consisting of but a few members, elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people, but few changes in the ordinary course of elections take place among the members; they become in some measure a fixed body, and often inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish and the fountain of corruption…Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them."

Does this not sound at all familiar to the modern day reader? Congress has become so full of long time members that they have forgotten the people that they have come to represent. For example, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland District 5, which is not thirty-five minutes from Washington DC, barely campaigned in his district in the past election, save for some automated voice messages and campaign signs that didn't begin to emerge until shortly before November. There were no public rallies or meetings so he could get a feel for what the citizens of his district wanted. So how does he know what these people want and need? Does he get elected because he has his people in mind? Or does he retain his office because he gets enough party votes and he has just become a fixture to the people? So many of the House members have become so attached to the power they have in Washington DC that for the most part they have lost touch with their base at home. Sure, they put vast numbers of earmarks in bills for some utterly pointless project that they want done in their district and claim that it is for the people. And their constituents eat it up like gullible little fish. What the people fail to realize is that these little bits of pork that their representatives throw to them from Washington will most likely have very little effect or benefit to them in the long run. But it gets them to vote, and to the power hungry politician, that is all that matters.

So what is the solution to this problem of out of touch representatives? It is really quite simple: impose term limits upon them. This was a system that was previously set up in the Articles of Confederation, and was one of the rules that actually made sense, but was dropped when the Constitution was created. If one takes a look at this rule, however, they will see the genius behind it. The rule was that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years." This means that in a period of six years, you could be sent as a delegate three times, and then you had to sit out for the remainder. So, if a man was sent three years in a row, he was ineligible for the next three.

Why was this rule established? For the simple reason that the Founders knew that power corrupts. In Federalist Farmer 11, the author makes a very clear case for why there must be term limits imposed upon the representatives of the House. He readily admits that a rotation in office will exclude certain good men from office for a time, but it is hoped that there are other good men (and women in today's case) that will have the people's interests in mind, who can take the seat. However, there is good that comes from rotation in office and term limits. The author states two clear advantages. The first is that it helps to "guard against those pernicious connections, which usually grow up among men left to continue long periods in office…" Simply put, it puts a crimp on the political cabals that are likely to arise between members that might endanger the rights of the people. And the second advantage is that it helps to "increase the number of those who make the laws and return to their constituents; and thereby spread information, and preserve a spirit of activity and investigation among the people…" From these two advantages, a "balance of interests and exertions are preserved, and the ruinous measures of factions rendered more impracticable."

By making it impossible for one person to sit for term after term, the long term political alliances are bypassed and it helps to keep the people in touch with those whom they have sent to Washington to represent them and make the laws that affect their lives. Through this contact, the people can express either their delight or displeasure with the measures this person supported or did not support, and through this, the former lawmaker learns, and if they get the chance to go back, they hopefully know what they need to do differently. It is a win-win situation for both lawmaker and constituent, as well as for the nation as a whole.

Now, the question remains as to how would the American people go about affecting this type of radical change? They would have to call for a change to the Constitution by adding an amendment. Common sense would dictate that it could not be done as an amendment called for on the floor of the House of Representatives, because the men and women who sit there would never vote for, nor ratify, an amendment to the Constitution that curtails their power and their ability to hold onto that power for as long as they can get elected.

That leaves it up to the people of the United States to bring this type of Constitutional change about. As has been stated in previous posts, the American people retain the political authority in the United States, and the men and women who sit in Congress are only their elected delegates who are responsible to those people who put them there. The writers of the Constitution wrote in the provision in Article Five that the people of the United States can call upon their state governments to call a convention in which to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and if three-fourths of the states do this and the legislatures of those same states ratify the proposed amendment, it becomes law. This is the people's prerogative and their right.

When a government that was instituted to protect the people's right to life, liberty and property becomes in any way dangerous to them, it is the "Right of the People to alter or abolish it…" Now, the government of the United States has not become dangerous to the point of needing to abolish it and create a new one. That is not what one should take away from this. What one needs to understand is that it is the people's right to alter the government when they see that it is becoming dangerously powerful. And that is what is happening today. The government is expanding and is moving toward what it was not meant to be, and that is the ultimate political authority in this country. That alone rests with the people. It is the duty of the liberty loving citizens of these United States to step up into the role that was intended for them and let the government know who is really in charge. The government does not take the people seriously because the people don't take their role in government seriously. And it is time that that changed.

The Best Kept Secret

The government has been keeping a secret from the American people. It isn't a new thing; the government has been doing this for years. But this secret is big; so big, in fact, that there is a very clear and cogent reason why the men and women in Washington are keeping this piece of information so close to the vest. And you will never guess what it is.

The big secret is that the real power of government, the true political authority in this country does not rest in Washington DC. It is not in the hands of the majority party in Congress, nor is it vested in the person who sits in the Oval Office. In actuality, the real political power in America rests in the hands of the people. That's right, the everyday voting Americans are really the ones in whom political authority truly rests. And the politicians in Washington do not want any of these people to know it, because if they did, then those same men and women would have everything to fear, for their place in "power" would no longer be secure, because then the people would realize that those who sit in the halls of Congress are accountable to them, and this just will not do.

Those men and women who sit as Representatives or Senators are there to represent the constituents of their districts or states, and the American people cannot be expected to depart with the smallest right in which they have deposited with these same men and women. That have invested them with the power to legislate. This is not a gift, but a duty. The American people have not in any way departed with their political rights by investing power in the government. These same Representatives and Senators have been put in their position by the vote of the people, not by anything they have actually done or accomplished. Without their constituents, they would be nothing. And they were elected for the sole purpose of representing those same men and women who elected them into office. If they deviate in any way, shape or form from the will of the people, then those who hold the political authority have every right to reprimand them, inform them of what their purpose is, and direct them how to vote. Through this, the people shape and determine how this country is run, not the government. Nothing is to be done without the consent of the people, for if this becomes the case, the voters have every right to remove that person from office whom they elected to represent them.

Now it becomes clear why the politicians in Washington do not want this principal foundation of American governance to come to light and to keep it hidden from the American people. They have come to Congress, not with the intention of doing what is right for the voters back home who entrusted them with this position, nor for the betterment of the American people as a whole. Instead, they have taken their seats in Congress in order to satisfy their own lust for power. They are there in order to push forward their own personal agenda, and they have forgotten the men and women who put them there in the first place. These so-called representatives have forgotten the true end of government and why the people actually entrusted them with the responsibility of representation in the first place.

What is the true purpose of government? Why did the people elect someone to represent them? John Locke says that the purpose of government is to do good for the community that it was created to serve, whether that be at a local, state or national level. James Otis, a Massachusetts patriot and a member of our Founding generation said the following: "The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility and prosperity of the people." Simply stated, the government is to ensure that the people who have instituted the said government are to have the full enjoyment of their right to life, liberty and property, and nothing that the government does can infringe upon those rights.

Now, when those who are a part of that government fail in their duty, what is to be done about it? The answer is quite simple: at the next election, they are to be voted out of office. The people gave that representative their job, and they can just as easily remove that person from it. It is that simple. Samuel Adams said that if "the public affairs are illy conducted, if dishonest or incapable men have crept unawares into government, it is happy for us, that under our American Constitutions the remedy is at hand, and in the power of the great Body of People." When the people, after seeing that their representative to the government is not doing the job that they were tasked with, they will hopefully be prescient enough to vote that person out of power at the next election. As Adams went on to say: "It is prudent for the people to keep a watchful eye over the conduct of all who are entrusted with public affairs. Such attention is the people's great security."

Unfortunately, Americans have become all too lax in carrying out their political duty. Why is this? It is quite simple: the American people have been indoctrinated. For years now, ever since it began to emerge as the answer to all of the countries woes during the Great Depression years, it has been pounded into the minds of American children and adults alike that the government is the solution. If the people will just place more and more trust and power in the government, then all of their problems will be solved. And the people have more and more bought into this fallacious line of thought, so much so that now the government has become a veritable hydra, sprouting heads with each new government agency that is created to make their lives supposedly better. But it is fast being realized by many that the government is not the solution. It has become the problem.

However, too many Americans today have become to numb and mindless that they have failed to carry out their political duties to keep the government accountable. Sure, millions of Americans go out and vote, and do their civic duty like good little automatons. But do they truly pay attention to the issues that are being put forward, and to what is at stake if they don't make the best choice possible? After looking at the results of the past couple of elections, the answer would most assuredly be no. The government in Washington today is just full of party hacks and Johnny and Susie Do Nothings that it is beginning to drag America down a slippery slope that only ends at a steep precipice, with jagged boulders at the bottom, and there is not safety line to catch it.

It is time for the American people to once again stand up and begin asserting themselves in the role that was originally intended for them. It is time for Americans to stand up to Congress and the politicians who are running Washington DC who have become more of a hindrance than a help. The needless waste of taxpayer dollars has got to stop. The massive bureaucracy that has become the government must be paired down and trimmed like the out of control weed patch that it now is. It is time for Congress to realize who really and truly does hold the political power in the United States of America.

A Foolish and Spendthrift Government

"…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

These words, spoken by Thomas Jefferson during his Inaugural Address of 1801, expresses the attitude of one of our most famous, and in some cases, most beloved, Founding Fathers of what the government is supposed to be and how it is to perform. And by just looking at it, one can see how far America has moved from this ideal of good government.

Now, this is not to say that this is how all of the Founders thought of the proper role and purpose of government. Some, such as Alexander Hamilton, saw the need of an energetic government, one that exercised a greater deal of authority and regulated more of how Americans were to live. And while some of his views were in actuality good and necessary (a subject for another time), these were not the ideals of Jefferson, and in reality a hands off government was more the dream of the Patriot generation than anything else. An excessively strong federal government was not the ideal that Jefferson and a number of the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence had in mind, nor what they fought for.

Jefferson, when he took office, stood for a hands off form of government, one that did not intrude greatly into the everyday lives of Americans, leaving them free to live their lives as they saw fit. To put it succinctly, he stood for a "wise and frugal government…" What exactly did he mean by that? The Founding Fathers had a distinct view of what the government was supposed to be and the purpose and role of elected officials. First and foremost, any elected government official was to be wise and virtuous. The whole point of a person running for office is to do what is best for the constituents of the area that a person is running to represent, whether it is local, state or national. One is not to be running for office for personal gain or aggrandizement. Neither was the role of representative, senator or president ever meant to be lifelong career choice. One was do their part, and when it came time, step down. It was to be a position of service to ones countrymen. One did not go into politics at first for the money. Pay for the congressmen, senators and president was not that much in the beginning. Many of them could have made much more with their pre-politics jobs than with what they were making as congressmen, senators, or even president. And notice how four of the first five presidents, all members of the Patriot generation, actually gave up the office after serving for just two terms. They understood that it was not proper to hold onto the power forever, and that was not what the people wanted. Two of those men, Madison and Monroe, were still fairly young, and could have kept going for at least one more term each if they had wanted it. But they did not. They voluntarily gave up power to propagate the advancement of the government they had founded. They understood the necessity of abdicating power in a republican democracy.

To what end was the government to function? According to Jefferson, as stated in the above quote, the purpose was to "restrain men from injuring one another…" which seems rather obscure if one does not look at the meaning behind it. The men of this time had grown up on the political philosophy of men such as John Locke, Montesquieu, David Hume, and the like. These men saw government as an institution in place to take over from the rule of every man for himself, which was the way it worked in a state of nature. Now, with mankind having left this state and instituted government, there were different rules. The government was there to enforce those rules and to protect the rights of the people, those rights being life, liberty and property. To put it simply, the government is there to ensure that order is kept. For what purpose was the Constitution established? It is all right there in the preamble: to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…" This is what the men who met in Philadelphia had in mind when they established the Constitution, short, simple and to the point. Now, the federal government had other jobs to perform to make sure all of this happened, but they were strictly enumerated, and had more to do with the overall scheme of things, and not the little, everyday things that were more attuned to being handled by state and local governments.

Other than what was enumerated as the purpose and job of government? They were to be strictly hands off. They were to leave the citizens "otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement…" What does this mean? Basically, the government cannot tell us how to live our everyday lives. They cannot tell us what kind of jobs we can work. It is not their place to tell us how much money we are allowed to bring in per annum. There is no place for the government to tell us what to read, say, or do, as long as it is lawful (i.e. not treasonous, slanderous or libelous.) The government is to let Americans live their lives how they want to live it, and to put no restrictions on their "pursuit of happiness." When the government begins to tell the citizens how much money they are allowed to make, or begins to disproportionately tax individuals because of what they make annually, then it is becoming a government of tyranny, and not one of freedom. The citizens of this country are to be at liberty, not hostages to the government.

This brings us to the last point made by Jefferson here, which is that the government is to "not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Now, this does not mean that we should not pay taxes. While Jefferson had a strong aversion to taxing the citizens, and did his best to cut back taxes, our taxes do a certain amount of good for us. They go to things such as fixing roads, making sure that our country is defended properly and ensures that the government is able to function. However, what Jefferson is saying is that the government should not, under any circumstances, overly tax the people and take from them the money that they have worked hard to earn for no good reason. While we should pay a certain tax in order for the country to sustain itself, and so that the states and local jurisdictions can perform properly, Americans today pay tax money that ends up going to wasteful spending programs that just take away the hard earned dollars of Americans and waste them. We have become a welfare state that hands out millions of dollars to people who are doing nothing, and are subsisting on the taxpayers (not the government) to survive, and doing nothing to even try and get out of this rut. There are hundreds of programs like this that are a complete waste. And while there are those who speak out against it, there are those who propagate the system and are trying their hardest to get them expanded. They are attempting to create a country that is wholly dependent upon the government to survive, instead of being independent and subsisting on their own initiative.

And as has already been stated, the government is not to excessively tax the people, tax them unfairly or punish them for having made more money and being more successful than others. Just because a person has had more success than others does not mean that they have been unjust or unfair, nor is it right to assume that because a person has more wealth, they are evil. If a person has the God given talent and intelligence to make the best of their lives and gifts, and they make money in the process, more power to them. If they have done this legally, then they have every right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If they choose to use that wealth to help those in need, they are free to do that. However, if they choose to hold onto their wealth and use it for themselves, well, that is their prerogative as well. This is an issue of personal morals, and not the domain of the government.

By unjustly taxing the people, a government that was instituted to do good perverts its cause, its purpose. This is one of the reasons that the United States was formed in the first place. The American colonists were being taxed by a government where they had no say, on the things that they used in their everyday lives. The taxes did not directly benefit them; the government benefitted, and it did nothing for the colonists. As was stated by Jefferson in the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms in 1776, the government of Great Britain had "undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property." Does this sound similar to something going on today? We are seeing the same things begin to happen today, and it is our very own government that is the agency perpetrating this action. Hard working Americans are being taxed more and more to pay for government programs that are of no benefit to them and help to perpetuate a society rife with idleness and indolence.

Instead of a "wise and frugal" government, what we have now in the United States is one that is foolish and spendthrift, one that is ever willing to pick the pockets of its own people to fund useless projects and to pay for others that benefit the few, and do not promote the general welfare. The dream of the Founders has been shattered to a million pieces. No longer are we guided by their vision of a wise and virtuous government, but by the vision of Europeans whose plans have failed. These so called politicians are becoming a blight upon our society with an inclination for spending the taxpayers money while wheedling their way out of even doing their own part. These men and women are for the most part without virtue or wisdom as to how to run a government. They have foolishly led America down a path that has been gone down by many before it and it is the path to destruction. And instead of it being a government that is far off and distant to us, where we have no say whatsoever, it is our very own government, with the men and women whom we have elected to represent us, who are carrying out this destructive plan. And this is wholly unacceptable.