How Much Is Enough?

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The entirety of mass media has been focused almost entirely on the tragedy of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight. The number of hours dedicated to an issue for which there is achingly little information is staggering.

It is thus perhaps understandable that the aforementioned media has chosen not to focus its attention on more domestic issues. In this era of political gridlock and ridiculous claims of ‘unfairness’, there still remains some hard realities that must be addressed by our elected leaders.

To wit:

This nation is still far from a true economic recovery, and yet the body politic refuses to address the issues of debt, deficit and responsible budgetary restraint. There are continued cries for increasing taxes on the rich, and that more money is needed for this infrastructure or another.

In short, the electorate is bombarded daily with the message that the government requires more cash to continue fulfilling its purpose.

The reality is that government as a whole can longer manage its fiduciary mandate and as such has voluntarily relinquished its responsibility to America for no other reason that political cowardice and budgetary ineptitude.

For proof of that fact, consider this edited compendium of information from various sources relative to the budgetary madness currently in play in Washington. It should be of both deep concern and outrage on the part of the American people.

As they say, you can’t make this stuff up. The numbers do not lie.

Consider:

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1,104,947,000,000 in the first five months of fiscal 2014, but the federal government still ran a $377,379,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for February.

Each month, the Treasury publishes the government’s “total receipts,” including all revenue from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), unemployment insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and “miscellaneous receipts.”

In constant 2014 dollars, the $1,104,947,000,000 that the federal government collected from October through February in fiscal 2014 was $90,193,750,000 more than the 1,014,753,250,000 it collected in October through February in fiscal 2013.

Although the federal government brought in a record  of approximately $1,104,947,000,000 in revenue in the first five months of fiscal 2014, according to the Treasury, it also spent approximately 1,482,327,000,000—leaving a deficit of approximately 377,379, 000,000.

After the current fiscal year, the second highest federal tax intake in the first five months of a fiscal year occurred in the first five months of fiscal 2007, when the government collected 1,076,721,860,000 in 2014 dollars—or 28,225,140,000 less than in the first five months of this fiscal year.

At the beginning of 2013, Congress passed and President Obama signed “The American Taxpayer Relief Act.” While this act made permanent some of the lower tax rates enacted for ten-year periods under President George W. Bush, it also increased some tax rates.

The Congressional Research Service summary of the law said it: “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise income tax rates for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below the $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and increase the rate to 39.6% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the threshold, (2) set the threshold for the phaseout of personal tax exemptions and itemized deductions at $250,000 for individual taxpayers ($300,000 for married couples filing a joint return), and (3) increase the top marginal estate tax rate from 35% to 40%.

The law also: “Increases the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the $400,000 threshold amount.”

The Feinstein Issue

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Sen. Dianne Feinstein took to the Senate floor this week to make the accusation that in effect the C.I.A. had been, and still is, acting in an unconstitutional manner, claiming that the agency had been spying on members of the senate committee which has been investigating the spy agency.

In true Washington D.C. fashion, the C.I.A. then immediately countered that staff members of the committee had acted illegally in the execution of their congressional oversight responsibilities.

This brought calls from all political circles of conduct bordering on a constitutional crisis.

Such commentaries might make for comical, pointless political theater, but completely miss the point.

There is nothing unconstitutional about one branch of government spying on another. This is so because there is nothing written within the framework of our governing document addressing such issues.

Many in the political class and their media sycophants attempted to decry such ambiguities within the Constitution as flaws of omission made by the framers and the founders of this nation. 

The truth of the matter of course is much different.

To wit:

The Constitution is so beautifully crafted as to specifically REMAIN nebulous on such situations. The construct of the checks and balances is never quite as clear as in these hyperbolically labeled ‘constitutional crises’.

Consider a possible resolution to the concerns and claims made by Senator Feinstein.

(It should be noted that in the absence of any hard data on the facts of her claim, the Madison Conservative is not addressing those issues at this time, but rather taking advantage of the situation to provide clarity on a bigger issue).

If Congress believes that the C.I.A. has been spying on it, all it need do is to pass legislation specifically prohibiting the agency, an arm of the Executive branch, from undertaking such actions on any other branch of government, i.e. the legislative and/or judicial.

The law is passed by both houses and is presented to the President for his signature. If he chooses to sign the bill, it becomes law. This would then provide criminal penalties should the C.I.A. begin to snoop anew.

Of course, the President could veto any such legislation, which would return it to the Congress. If both houses met the threshold of a two-thirds majority vote, they could overturn the veto, and the legislation could still become law.

In either event, the aggrieved party could petition the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of any such law. Once the Court ruled on that specific delineation of legality, the issue would be settled.

In over two hundred years, no such case has ever been presented to the Court, so there can be no constitutional crisis on this matter. By definition, a constitutional crisis would only exist if the Constitution were to be specifically ignored on a described action of government.

What can happen is for the legislative branch to flex its constitutional muscle and let the Executive branch know that this government is an equal triumvirate.

It would make for fascinating study on the nature of a true democratic republic.

The Madison Conservative encourages the Congress to take such actions.

We owe the founders, framers, ourselves and our posterity no less than to preserve the structural integrity of the United States Constitution.

Happy Birthday!

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

 This coming Sunday, the 16^th of March, will mark the 263^rd birthday of the namesake of the Madison Conservative, James Madison.

In advance of his birthday, we would hope to provide a biographical sketch of the great American, but it would be nearly impossible to encapsulate the achievements of the man deemed ‘The Father of the United States Constitution” within the space limitations of this blog.

The Madison Conservative would recommend that Americans take this week to search out the story of our 4^th President and his passions for the nation he helped create.

In an era of raw partisanship, it would be of immense help to the body politic to remember that James Madison, in creating the structure of the United States government, he pulled off the ultimate accomplishment in principled compromise.

The following biography is courtesy of the WhiteHouse.gov website, and is the official biography in total.

Happy Birthday Mr. Madison!

At his inauguration, James Madison, a small, wizened man, appeared old and worn; Washington Irving described him as "but a withered little apple-John." But whatever his deficiencies in charm, Madison's buxom wife Dolley compensated for them with her warmth and gaiety. She was the toast of Washington.

Born in 1751, Madison was brought up in Orange County, Virginia, and attended Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). A student of history and government, well-read in law, he participated in the framing of the Virginia Constitution in 1776, served in the Continental Congress, and was a leader in the Virginia Assembly.

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison took frequent and emphatic part in the debates.

Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays. In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands."

In Congress, he helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first revenue legislation. Out of his leadership in opposition to Hamilton's financial proposals, which he felt would unduly bestow wealth and power upon northern financiers, came the development of the Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party.

As President Jefferson's Secretary of State, Madison protested to warring France and Britain that their seizure of American ships was contrary to international law. The protests, John Randolph acidly commented, had the effect of "a shilling pamphlet hurled against eight hundred ships of war."

Despite the unpopular Embargo Act of 1807, which did not make the belligerent nations change their ways but did cause a depression in the United States, Madison was elected President in 1808. Before he took office the Embargo Act was repealed.

During the first year of Madison's Administration, the United States prohibited trade with both Britain and France; then in May, 1810, Congress authorized trade with both, directing the President, if either would accept America's view of neutral rights, to forbid trade with the other nation.

Napoleon pretended to comply. Late in 1810, Madison proclaimed non-intercourse with Great Britain. In Congress a young group including Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, the "War Hawks," pressed the President for a more militant policy.

The British impressment of American seamen and the seizure of cargoes impelled Madison to give in to the pressure. On June 1, 1812, he asked Congress to declare war.

The young Nation was not prepared to fight; its forces took a severe trouncing. The British entered Washington and set fire to the White House and the Capitol.

But a few notable naval and military victories, climaxed by Gen. Andrew Jackson's triumph at New Orleans, convinced Americans that the War of 1812 had been gloriously successful. An upsurge of nationalism resulted. The New England Federalists who had opposed the war--and who had even talked secession--were so thoroughly repudiated that Federalism disappeared as a national party.

In retirement at Montpelier, his estate in Orange County, Virginia, Madison spoke out against the disruptive states' rights influences that by the 1830's threatened to shatter the Federal Union. In a note opened after his death in 1836, he stated, "The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated."