The Budget Debate (Again) July 2011

…“to ourselves and our posterity"…

As the churlish and childish wrangling continues unabated over the configuration of the debt ceiling legislation, it is time to once again look towards the founders and the framers for proper guidance and wisdom to resolve the infantile political logjam.

There is no single solution that can be provided by either political extreme; as always, the proper course must be guided by pragmatic compromise.

That solution is easily at hand.

A look at recent history, however, shows the folly of blind compromise, a solution that was no solution at all but rather nonsensical gibberish that has done nothing but fuel the current financial distress. Moving the problem forward in time has been the prevailing option for the past several decades; such choices must end.

To wit:

There are those who claim that the balanced budgets and surpluses of the late 1990’s were squandered and plundered by subsequent administrations. This is ridiculous after even the most cursory examination of the reality of those budgets. The balance claim is supported only by accounting gimmickry that a fourth grader with an abacus could easily discount. The surplus, based upon the budget claims could also be disproved simply by noting that such assertions were based upon cuts that were scheduled for a future date uncertain.

If we accept that a balanced budget and surplus could be realistically attained simply by promising to cut future spending, no rational American who needs to balance their checkbook monthly would ever pay their debts; they would merely send out IOU’s and promise to send in the money later, once they cut out the unnecessary parts of their household budget.

The American public can no longer accept this type of fiduciary mismanagement.

The founders have provided us with the framework of a reasoned and acceptable compromise for those who claim that only cuts or only raising taxes are the solely acceptable solution. Neither option is realistic or financially sound.

Given that the political class always seems to enact the income side first, with cuts scheduled for later, the debt ceiling legislation can be easily worded to accommodate all sides, and rejected only by those who are either imbeciles, politically cowardly, or both.

The legislation could be so structured to first provide the government with a proper audit of the operating, or direct overhead, costs required to run the government, to be completed by a date certain, perhaps three months hence. This can be the first place to discover cost savings and provide a blueprint to begin required budget cuts.  The second tier would be cuts that both sides seem ready to accept, apparently in the area of two trillion dollars.

Once these cuts have been fully enacted, the legislation could then provide for eliminating non essential tax breaks for corporations and other entities that are being supported on the public dole.

The last part of the legislation would be revenue increases. They would be mandated by discovering the cost of government. If there are budgetary increases needed, the American electorate could at least be assured that such revenue increase are as a last resort; all the outstanding waste and frivolity has been eliminated. The American people could then accept the deal because all other options have been explored and utilized.

The founders trust in American democracy and self-rule for themselves and their posterity would be well founded and well deserved and we could continue to pass along a nation financially secure for ourselves and our posterity.

The Buck Stops With Congress.

“..and secure the blessings of Liberty…”

The nonsense and ignorance continues in Washington D.C. amongst the political class and their commentator flacks in all form of media as the budget issues continue to escalate. There seems to be a propensity towards outright stupidity in the absence of true leadership and honest statesmanship. The honest debate, once the proud hallmark of American democracy and self-rule is being replaced by an appalling and shrill shrieking lack of knowledge.

It is becoming embarrassing to those who respect the document upon which this nation was constructed; the United States Constitution.

The latest salvos in the ongoing fiscal war are being fired as our elected officials worry more about keeping their positions of (temporary) authority and (granted by the electorate) power and less about the short term and long term financial health of our nation.

Sadly, many commentators of both political extremes are doing their part to help obfuscate and cloud the real issues and are growing successful in their attempts to drown out the rational and reasoned arguments being brought forth to address an issue, that if left unchecked, will plunge this nation into financial chaos..

They blather on about ‘constitutional crises’ over the budget and with their most desperate vocal tones worry aloud on the presidents’ authority to address these monetary issues by executive fiat. These proposals are floated by the wily sycophants of both major political parties and the American electorate should be outraged.

The constitutional language is precise and wholly unambiguous on these matters, so the language of ‘constitutional crisis’ begs the question – have those in elected office ever read our founding document, or at least even perused the section that relates to their official governmental offices? A ‘crisis’ would ensue if there was no constitutional authority bestowed upon any branch of government to deal with a given situation. That may happen one day, but it does not exist for this situation.

Article two of the United States Constitution clearly spells out the duties and responsibilities of the chief executive. It does not mention, in any form, the power or responsibility to be directly involved in any budgetary framing issue.

The founders constructed this nation that way for a reason. They did not want one person to hold that much power and authority within their newly formed government. The Constitution does, however, state the following within Article One, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes…”

“The Congress shall have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States…”

“The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof…”

Therein lays the power and the responsibility for the financial health of the nation. There is no doubt as to the interpretation of the founders on this point. There may some doubt within the cowardly heart of many a politician, but the Constitution is clear where lies the responsibility for maintaining the fiduciary integrity of the United States of America.

As a body, Congress has failed miserably, and their oath of office requires that they protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It appears they have collectively failed in their jobs.

They must be held accountable and the electorate must demand that they stop attempting to place blame and shirk their constitutional mandate.

If the people do not, this nation will indeed perish from the face of the Earth.

Independence Day 2011

As the political season centering on the 2012 presidential election begins to heat up prematurely and thus successfully diminish the significance of the 2011 elections, the tired and baneful process of creating imaginary enemies has begun. Both extremes of the political spectrum are beginning their hue and cry of ‘taking back our country’ from the opposition. The American electorate should shun this process and these attempts to demonize our fellow citizens for short term and short sighted political advantages.

We are all Americans: we know better than to disparage each other in this manner.

There should be no belief that the country needs to be “taken back”. The nation collectively should look to gather together.

Invariably, the founders and the framers are brought into this debate on the belief that their use will help prop up and support the nonsensical petty political argument being made. While there are ample examples of the political beliefs of the founders, there are precious few personal, and thus more emotional and contemporaneous, written commentaries for use to use to establish the feelings they had, in context of founding their new democracy.

On this 235^th anniversary of the founding of the greatest nation the world has ever beheld, the words of one of the founders should be reexamined for direction on how we as a nation can find common ground upon which to base our future.

The following excerpt is from a letter written by John Adams to his beloved Abigail. There were few more openly and unabashedly passionate founders than Adams on the subject of the infant nation. His comments speak volumes to those who wish to listen.

To wit:

(ed. Note: the original punctuations and spellings have been left intact)

July 3^rd, 1776:

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America – I am apt to believe it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more….I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.”

We should consider Adams’ perspective when we stop and consider the precious gift of our freedom and what we have lost in blood and treasure in the pursuit and defense of our independence. We should not disengage from the emotional component of democracy, and we should contemplate giving thanks for the opportunities we have been given.

Let us celebrate our nation with all the fanfare we can muster.

Perhaps if we celebrate as Adams’ suggests we can agree on our common heritage and decide to move forward together, so that as a nation we can confidently “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

We owe ourselves, our nation, and her posterity no less.

Happy July 4^th and may God continue to bless all of America!

The Declaration of Independence

In anticipation of the 235^th anniversary of the birth of the greatest nation the world has ever known, The Madison Conservative believes that a posting of our Declaration is in order. For those of all political persuasions that believe the Declaration is not as binding as the United States Constitution may wish to revisit that claim. The Declaration is as much a statement of Independence as it is a statement of political and governing principles and to the intent of the founders as any comparable document.

(note: all spellings and punctuations are original and have been left intact)

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Responsibilty & Political Leadership

(ed. Note: the Madison Conservative does not use specific names unless the person(s) are germane to the discussion at hand. We do not engage in ad hominum attacks of any kind. This post refers to the congressman only as a vehicle to create the parameters of the following dialogue)

“When in the course of human events…”

The spectacle that had been  swirling  around Congressman Anthony Weiner – (D-NY) for the past two weeks is  a classic study in the paradigm of public service in the era of the twenty-four hour media cycle and the age of the social network .

The conduct and actions of Congressman Weiner are not at the heart of the issue. His behavior can be branded in many ways, but there has been no evidence of illegality in what he has done. The claim of misconduct is only in the context of the House rules.

So the question begs to be asked and answered. Exactly what was the scope of the congressman’s transgressions and should he have resigned?

The actions taken by the Mr. Weiner were not criminal. They should remain within the realm of his marriage; his wife and family were the only people hurt by his personal choices.

There are politicians who look at personal misconduct solely within the framework of short term political gain. Hyperbolic claims of outrage are ridiculous. Adults do stupid things; stupidity does not necessarily equate with criminality.

So he should not have resigned if that decision was based upon any sense or supposition of illegality.

The heart of the issue, however, is that he should not have had the time to deliberate his fate as the scandal unfolded. Leaders of his own party publicly suggested he resign, yet not one member of either political party brought upon the House floor a formal resolution requiring that the congressman be held accountable for his actions by his elected colleagues, themselves the elected representatives of the American people. The American electorate may be a forgiving lot, but they will not stand for politicians with poor personal judgment.

Therein lies the true crux of the issue.

Mr. Weiner should have been ousted by his peers, not for his actions per se, but for his lack of judgment. A member of Congress is but one of 535 citizens entrusted with the legislative responsibilities of a nation of over 300 million. Poor personal prudence cannot be tolerated, and once he acknowledged his culpability he should have been taken to task and held responsible by the full House of Representatives. The overwhelming silence in that regard is both telling of the general hypocrisy of those in politics in general and of the lack of leadership in particular.

The people of the United States must demand excellence and leadership in those entrusted with the stewardship of this great nation; to tolerate any less is a harbinger of national self destruction.

In God We Trust?

“We the people…”

A recent Texas judicial decision forbidding any reference to religion during a high school commencement ceremony was heralded by those who favor separation of church and state as a successful defense of the United States Constitution. The decision, later vacated, was decried by others as a restriction on the right of free speech. The judges’ ruling stated that any mention of religion would bring irreparable harm to the plaintiff in the case. 

While the freedom of religion is often misunderstood by those who advocate its restriction in public affairs due to their lack of reading and understanding the debate on the Constitution by the framers and the founders, perhaps it would be better for the nation financially if the government was indeed completely severed from any religious connection.

A thumbnail sketch of such a scenario would seem to be in order to understand what said nation would resemble. In these harsh economic times, the path to balance the cost of government perhaps should begin at the altar of religion.

The first budgetary savings would come from eliminating the costs involved with the paid chaplains for both the House and the Senate. The need for chaplains in the military would also continue the savings. The adage of there being no atheists in foxholes may be true, but the government will not be paying the costs of religious comfort for those who are putting their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. Additionally, there would be cost savings by eliminating the need for national military cemeteries. Without a religious context of a life after death, there is no need for the government to pay for maintaining what would be essentially open tracts of land.

Productivity in the government would improve as there would be no need for scheduling around Sundays and holidays. A full seven day work week for all government employees, including Congress, could be the norm. Overtime pay is often calculated for working weekends and holiday; no religious context thus gives no need for overtime holiday pay. The government could work through Thanksgiving – with no religious connection, who are we giving thanks to? The same with the Christmas holidays, or the winter holiday as it has become known as.

The court system would benefit greatly from the elimination of government religious affiliations. They could restrict themselves to only matters of written contract law. Much of the legal descriptions of crimes – murder, theft, perjury and such – are based upon the Judeo-Christian principles, as dictated by the Ten Commandments. Removing that religious context affords no legal rationale for calling such acts crimes. There may be moral imperatives associated with such conduct, but no official government reasoning. As the advocates of separation of church and state continually remind us, morality should not be a part of the official equation.

The freedom of religion was constructed to avoid what the founding fathers saw as the corruption of a government that forced a sole religion – in this case the Church of England – upon the people. Avoiding government mandated allegiance to religion was their intent. Those who warn of their fears of an  encroachment of religion into the government are missing the bigger issues. The government should not mandate or impose a religious association, but neither should it shy away from the necessity of religious precepts and principles in the forming and performance of its legal authority to protect and defend the citizens of the United States.

In God We Trust.

The Power and The Strength of the Tenth

“in order to form a more perfect union…”

The framers and founders had a clear objective when creating the Constitution. They had seen and been subjected to unimpeded authoritative governance that seemed to be presided over more by whim than necessity. There was much debate as to the nature and strength of a centralized federal government. The Constitution was written with very specific language detailing the scope of authority given to the new federal government. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in their ratification of the Constitution, dated February 6^th, 1788 wrote “That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised” This language is comparable to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, the guiding framework established during the gestation of the Constitution. The framers and founders had a clear objective about limited government.

The Bill of Rights is often and correctly referenced with respect to freedom of speech, the press, religion and the freedoms associated with the legal rights of the accused. What often goes unnoticed is the tenth amendment, which reads in full as:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The question needs to be asked as to why this clause was inserted into the Bill of Rights, and the lessons and warnings it has for the l discourse in today’s ever increasing disparate political climate.

The Bill of Rights was the attempt to address many of the issues and concerns of the states relative to their votes on ratification, hence the notation made by the Massachusetts Commonwealth. The architects of the Constitution felt this protection of freedom so necessary that it was included in the first series of amendments. It was not a capricious decision – they knew their fledgling democracy needed this fundamental protection. We must give that fact its proper and due weight.

The powers granted to the government, by the people, of the people and for the people are strong but limited in scope. There is an increasing attempt by those of political cowardice to inject powers and authority into the federal government under the guise of the common good. Perhaps intended as a noble cause by some, but wholly ignorant of the founders intent.

A government that can create authority and powers unchecked is a direct And frightening path to tyranny. This is not hyperbole; history has shown that all oppressive governments that have come to power did so by  first consolidating power under the guise of serving the common good.

We must be ever vigilant against the encroaching power of the federal government. The powers under which the government operates must be guarded against overreach by those who are hoping for short term political power and advantage.

A strong central government is a need for a flourishing democracy, but democracy also demands that such a government be subject to he foresight of the checks and balances instituted by the Constitution.

Our ancestors fought and died for our freedom, and we must pass that freedom on to our posterity in the form of a strong but restricted government, limited to the powers granted under our Constitution.