Beware The Corrupting Influence Of Status

One of the truly amazing facets of American government, and American democracy overall is the lack of a ruling class, or more specifically a ‘legislative class’. The founders and the framers understood the fragility of self rule, but believed that if given the opportunity, citizen-legislators would be amongst the basic bulwarks that would guide their audacious experiment known as the United States of America. The architects of our Constitution also had first hand knowledge of the baneful effects of a ruling class; America would not become home to earls, dukes, counts and their ilk. The House of Representatives was conceived as the ‘people’s house’. Citizens would come for a while, serve their country, bring voice to the concerns of their communities, and then after a few terms, return home to their lives and give the opportunity, responsibility  and privilege to another citizen to do their part. The Senate was designed as the more deliberative body, the place that would necessitate long and thoughtful debate.  It was believed  that the more successful members of their respective communities would be asked to serve, to handle the larger issues that faced the country. These senators would serve a term or two, and then return to their profitable lives back in the private sector. This is why there is specific language in the Constitution relative to no member of the government holding any title from another government, and why there was no language about ‘term limits’. The concept of professional politicians was anathema to them; it made no logical sense.

The concern today is that representatives seem to feel the need to be addressed not as ‘congressman’, or ‘senator’, but if applicable to be addressed by whatever political title they have; chairman, majority leader’, etc. What is even of greater concern is that they seem to feel that such titles should follow them after their terms are over. Former speakers, senators, etc. appear on current media outlets with their titles intact. This is dangerous, for it shows them to believe they have some level of birthright to the positions they were given by the American people. The most glaring example of this was Senator Barbara Boxers’ response to being addressed as ‘ma’am’ by a general giving testimony before a senate committee. She chided the general and told him point blank that she should be addressed as ‘senator’, on her belief that she had worked hard to achieve the title. ‘Ma’am’ is a show of respect within the military, and represents deference to an individual in authority. A United States senator should know that.

Demanding to be addressed with a political title is a dangerous step towards establishing a ‘ruling class’, and Americans should be wary of allowing it to continue.

There does not need to be a Constitutional amendment on term limits to address this issue. The electorate merely needs to thank their representative for their service, give them a firm slap on the back for a job well done, a firm handshake wishing them well, and then show them the door out of the peoples’ representative office. 

‘We The People’ is the beginning of the Constitution for a reason.

The Budget Process - how much are the paper clips?

And so begins again the nonsensical annual practice known as the congressional budget cutting process, an oxymoron if ever there was one. It ultimately does little more than demonstrate and highlight the absolute ineptitude and chicanery inherent in the officials currently entrusted with the nations purse strings. Only in government would a program that was intended to receive a ten percent increase have that endowment cut to only a five percent increase would it be trumpeted as a five percent cut. Members from all facets of the political spectrum gravely intone in front of an array of microphones that cutting entire programs would result in various stages of Armageddon for that programs recipients. The final budget proposal is then heralded as a triumph of responsible spending, and that the hard choices have been made to put the nation on the road to financial health.

As the saying goes – hardee har har.

This process has now resulted in a fourteen trillion dollar debt. Obviously, changes need to be made, and the changes are both easily attainable, and ultimately practical. Just ask any small business owner.

There is little doubt amongst the electorate that there is sufficient income generated in this country to provide for the essential processes of government. What no elected official has yet to present, however, is the actual operating cost of government. Any small business owner can tell you exactly what their operating costs are, from their utility costs to how much they spend on paper clips. This critical information is what affords them the opportunity to achieve the intended goal of being profitable. Any business that does not know their operating costs is not long for the yellow pages. Yet nobody in government looks at what it actually costs to run the government. The budgetary process merely looks at cutting or adding to each year’s allocations, without looking to see the true bottom line. Politicians talk of budget surpluses; how can there be a ‘surplus’ when there is debt to be paid, interest on that debt to be serviced? The actual concept of a budget ‘surplus’ should be an affront to the electorate; it is THEIR money. Any money the government does not need to function should be returned to that electorate. The budget can easily be brought into balance, but what that balance truly is must first be determined by obtaining the facts relative to the operation of the bureaucracy.

The government needs to know what it is spending in paper clips.

It is the peoples’ money; not the governments.

Follow the Campaign Money Trail

The one common lament amongst our elected officials is their hue and cry of the need to spend so much time fundraising for their campaigns, which they claim draws them away from their truly  important work of the peoples business. They create, (and then immediately circumvent) arcane and pointless rules and regulations collectively known as ‘campaign finance reform’, despairing that their search for employment must, of necessity and ‘transparency’ ultimately be publicly funded by the very people who bestow upon them the sacred honor of public service. There is of course a more principled response to this issue, and one that mandates the direct involvement by the American people, in order to restore the honor and integrity of the democratic republic. The recent Supreme Court ruling that established entities  to have unfettered access to election financing was based upon their reading of the Constitution, and so to properly resolve this issue, the rare but crucially necessary act of amending the Constitution must be undertaken at the state level, as it is improbable and implausible to believe that the Congress will act on itself in this matter. The constitutional amendment needs to be succinctly and specifically worded. It should address the issue is this manner: only those individuals who can enter a voting booth and cast a legal ballot shall be allowed to contribute any amount of their personal wealth as they may choose to the candidate, political party, and cause of their choice. Such allocation of monies may only be disseminated to candidates who are on the donors’ specific district ballot. This wording will insure that the individual may only donate to their specific state assemblyman, United States congressman and senator. It will forbid unions, pacs, lobbyists and their ilk from controlling the agenda by the sheer volume of cash they donate. It will allow people to fund  but one national election- the presidential election. It removes all the stress from our officials to fundraise in all areas of the country, and will force them to stay connected to their own constituents.

The Arizona Shootings

In the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Arizona this past weekend, the usual suspects have once again exited the woodwork to spew forth their nonsensical ranting about the politics involved in such acts of violence. This is of course not a time for callous political calculations, nor a time to blather on with lame attempts to affix partisan blame. These murders and assaults were the act of one evil man, and our focus on him should be limited to assuring that his actions are met with the full extent of our laws. Placing any additional focus upon him is what individuals like this are hoping for. We should not care about his motives; he murdered six people and critically wounded several others, including a sitting United States congresswoman. His acts were that of insanity; to try and understand them would be to attempt to understand insanity. We should have better uses of our time. One such more useful endeavor would be to address our gun laws.

As a staunch Madison conservative, I believe firmly in the second amendment. The founders and framers understood that one of the first acts of a tyrannical government is to confiscate the implements of defense needed by the citizenry. The pundits can debate the degree of those weapons in the scheme of the ‘militia’ stated in the second amendment. What cannot be understood in this day and age is what does a citizen need with a magazine of 31 shots? The term ‘assault weapon’ is by definition outside of the scope of the protection afforded by the Constitution. The framers wanted the public to be able to protect and defend; assault is an offense maneuver. To address the sale of these assault weapons whose sole reason for existence is to fire the maximum number of bullets in the shortest amount of time should be the prevailing government action to come from this tragedy. Those who will cry that any such limitations on these weapons are the first step towards a loss of liberty are missing the overriding point and overriding question: does anyone need to fire 31 shots at anyone to provide for their individual protection?

The Compromise

Seeing as it is the new year, and a new congress, and the apparent epithet of 'compromise' resounding through the halls of Congress, perhaps it is a good time to reflect on a few basic starting points that our elected officials are choosing to ignore, unless they are merely ignorant of how this country was founded. The very nature of the Congress, the House & the Senate, are in and of themselves a compromise. The brilliance of Madison was finding the balance between the two fundamentally opposed opinions on how the new government should be constructed. The house reflects one school of thought, the Senate the other. In the absurdity that was the concept of a democratic republic, the true patriots, the true statesmen found the necessary compromise needed to establish the government. It seems as though, 200 years on and counting, that compromise was not such a bad thing after all. So maybe in the bustle and chest beating of todays representatives looking to make political points at the price of  the country's better interests, a mandatory refresher course in United States history should be required along with the oath of office.