Fantastic.

But they need to narrow it down just a little. We don’t think it’s quite in the purview of the Federal Government to root out waste, fraud and abuse in all areas of American life. Roger Clemens has been indicted for lying to this committee. The Oversight Committee should indict itself for conducting hearings on baseball players. Even if MLB was conducting an international drug and child trafficking ring, the Oversight Committee would be responsible only for investigating how law enforcement agencies were spending/allocating resources.When a congressional committee can flatly ignore its purpose and conduct under-oath hearings of individuals for activities conducted in the context of their non-government job, every citizen can be placed under the same scrutiny. Sure, he could have invoked his right to not incriminate himself, but he isn’t being charged with controlled substance crimes. The prosecution believes Clemens lied to a congressional committee that had no right to question him.

So the moral of this story is; if ever you do something to enhance you performance at work, even if you are unlikely to be prosecuted for the act, don’t lie to people who shouldn’t be questioning you.

David

We have been trying for some time to get funding for just thinking to no avail. With any luck, she’ll let us know how it works. We have not seen anything that would require funding to be investigated. If you go out and ask someone if they thinks it’s a good idea to build a 15 story building to celebrate the religion invoked on 9/11 so close to ground zero that the original structure was hit by an aircraft landing gear, they say “no” and no funding is needed for the decision.

The Imam has indicated that the mosque is for building bridges. If 68% of Americans believe it is at least in poor taste and shouldn’t be built, we don’t understand how pissing off two thirds of a nation helps. It doesn’t help when the Imam has been taped blaming the United States for 9/11.

Jonah Goldberg wrote an interesting piece about anti-Islamic hate crimes. We looked into his numbers and a little more. In 2001, anti-Islamic hate crimes peaked at well under half the number of incidents aimed at Jews, then settling at about 10%. Of more interest though, the number of incidents reported as anti-Jewish has changed very little every year over the last 15 years. Perhaps we should be investigating how Jew haters have maintained funding for so long.

David

One of the main reasons our country was conceived in the way it was is precisely so individual states could try new things without destroying the nation if it failed. The Constitution has precious few limitations on state governments for that very reason.

Massachusetts has a variation of government health care. Fine. If they want it, let them have it. They may need to rethink how much it’s costing them though. California is facing similar budget issues as Greece and they should probably do something about it. But the point is; some ideas are better than others and on paper or in your heart are not realistic ways to test which is best. History is often a good guide, but people and attitudes do change and sometimes things should be tried in the real world of today. In America we have a huge advantage over the rest of the world, if we take advantage of it. We can test variables in states that actually want to implement ideas to see if they work. If so, other can adopt the legislation. If the concept fails when implemented in real life, only one state has to reconfigure back to the previous status quo.

The feds maintain interstate highways but if a state wants to pay for ultrahigh speed highways and have minimum speed limits of 75 mph and maximum of 150 mph, why should the feds say anything? Let them try it and see if the residents believe it’s worth the price of the road and the potential loss of life. If a state wants to ban the driving of gasoline powered vehicles on public roadways, let them.When the residents get hungry they will probably change the laws, but they should have the ability to try their dumb ideas out. If we keep letting the Federal government imposing dumb ideas on all of us, we won’t have any breathing room for the good ideas. The feds aren’t as good at getting rid of laws as they are at implementing them.

David

There has been some traffic given to an  article about how the stimulus has cost more than the Iraq war. Well that’s like shooting fish in a barrel with dynamite. They don’t even account for the fact that the stupid Keynesian theory is costing much more in terms of the economy’s overall suffering. It did however touch on a couple of important points of comparison. Medicare and education each received more funding than the Iraq war.

People can have very defensible positions as whether going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other related expenses to the war on terror (as it’s called in Government documents).  The Department of Education should not exist according t0 the Constitution. Federal health care programs should not exist either.

If you are someone that believes that we should not be spending so much money the fighting in Iraq, please explain why the Federal government is spending more money per year on education than  the ENTIRE war on terror.

Like it or not, defense is part of the Federal Government’s job. If you don’t like our military being sent to fight in places you think we should be fighting, vote for people that agree with you. If you think the Government should be paying for health services for those in need and education, your probably right, you just need to remember that it’s the state you live in that has the Constitutional authority to do it.

David

We tried to find what the main complaint is about the new law and came up with little more than leftist bitching. The Constitution is brought up repeatedly without getting to any real arguments. We did find a statement from the ACLU that parrots the same line as almost all writings about the Constitutionality of the law. The only point that may have merit is on making being in the country illegally a state offense. We admittedly have not researched this issue yet and will therefore refrain from opining. That is not the main Constitutional complaint, however.

The claim is that because the Constitution states that the Federal Government is responsible for protecting against invasion, the States are forbidden from enforcement. The idea here is that the Feds should handle all aspects of immigration and enforcement and that State police are not trained to handle the delicate intricacies of immigration law.

That is one of the dumbest arguments  we have ever heard. Guess what the Constitution is even more explicit about Federal authority. Money. All aspects of our monetary system is under the purview of the Feds. So following the model of the ACLU, we should be able to go to the police station to pay a fine and give them counterfeit money without repercussion. The cops would just say; “although we have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are illegally passing counterfeit money, that’s a Federal crime and we can’t do anything.” Really? Does the ACLU and their liberal friends really think that’s correct? No. We are pretty sure that it would be reasonable for the police to detain you even if they aren’t trained in the delicate intricacies of counterfeiting  currency.

AX

The justifiable part of the position is that abortion is homicide. Fine, call it homicide. That doesn’t always mean murder. Homicides are justified all the time for various reasons. Few Republicans believe woman should sacrifice her life (and possibly the unborn child) when an abortion could save her life. It’s a justifiable homicide. But all this discussion skirts the real issue.

Even murder is not a federal offense. There are very specific circumstances where a murder can become a federal crime, but those are rare exceptions. Unless the abortion occurred on Federal property, it would never be a federal crime. Homicides are under the jurisdiction of states. The U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal Government  power to enforce that type of crime. Abortion is a states rights issue plain and simple.

Republican elected representatives have come to bow to the religious right because they have a large and mobile voting block. Once that happened, Democrats took their natural position on the opposing side. That side is an easy stance for a party of Nationalist opposing federalism at the same time.

The cure is easy, although it does take effort. Vote in the primaries. That is where the tide can be changed and return the Republican party back to the side of federalists. Also, vote for presidents based on who they would pick to serve on  Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court).

Returning the entire abortion issue to the states would result in abortions being legal in all but maybe two or three states. If a person doesn’t like the outcome in their state, move to one where the majority agrees with you. The concept of federalism is not to make all states exactly the same. The opposite is far preferable. People all over the world live in nation states surrounding themselves with like-minded people. We have the advantage of pooling for defense and useful regulations. Although the Feds have taken the latter to places it should have never gone, the ideal is still sound.

AX

Political parties aren’t what they used to be. Democrats and Republicans have changed tactics and, to a much lesser extent, stated positions. Lincoln was a Republican. The Ku Klux Klan was comprised of Democrats. That much is basic history. But things seem to have changed. Or have they? To hear contemporary Democrats, one would believe that Republicans wish to return to the days of slavery and only Democrats can help the oppressed. Have political parties switched sides in the race debate? How and when did this role reversal happen without anyone noticing? The answer; political illusion. The switch never happened. The party that promoted itself with the exploitation of minorities still does. The party that made every attempt to equalize opportunity still does.

Here at AmendmentX.info we have long wondered why in countries that abolished slavery after the United States, black people seem to have fully integrated into society and aren’t constantly recalling events of 150 years ago. Here in the States, people of Asian descent had been persecuted in the past and yet now are generally not considered an at risk (of discrimination) population.

Starting with Asians; they were not enslaved at the rate of Africans. The abuse was not to the scale in almost any way. Fair enough, by there was a degree of parity with Africans that simply isn’t present now. Two things seem to missing that would appear to be vital to maintaining the feeling of repression for a group of people. First, the minority people themselves must be willing to limit themselves to what the majority gives them as stipends. If an American wants to raise their standard of living, they aren’t going to be able to stay on the Government dole. If they are willing to live on what they don’t earn, they can continue to cite how they deserve it because of something someone else did to long dead people a long time ago. It would seem Asians are unwilling to make that compromise. Second, in order to get the masses of minorities to unite and get the Government to hand out money to them, it is useful to have a political party that purports to stand up for the oppressed. Holding that position, the party would become dependent on an indefinitely oppressed group. So to keep the party viable, the leaders would have to make the supporters of the party believe they need to help poor minorities while at the same time keeping minorities poor. Asians neither have such a party, nor do they seem to want it.

By keeping black Americans in the belief that only Government can solve their problems, Democrats have a block of people that will vote for the party that directly states that they want give them other people’s money. Republicans tend towards teaching how to fish rather than just giving the fish. Republicans may initially seem to not care, but are actually showing a lack of racism by ignoring race and trying to make the starting line equal.The argument that modern racist groups tend toward the Republican party is just a silly point. Although it may be true, the reason should be obvious. Modern racists are stupid and don’t understand the point of this post. They haven’t got the brain power to see reality beyond their idiotic prejudice. Hence they aren’t for Republicans as much as they are against what Democrats are saying. Because Democrats have re-branded their lines (without re-branding the intent) as no longer oppressing minorities, the ignorant believe only what they hear and not what can be seen. Digging just below the surface and thinking about what is happening instead of what is merely said results in often different views.

This idea goes to many aspects of life. The concept of “no child left behind” should send shivers throughout your being. The child that is behind isn’t dragged up with the rest of group; simply because that is not possible. Some kids just don’t learn as fast or as much as others. Some may need a lot of extra help. So how can none be left behind? We could use big hammers and beat knowledge into their little heads. But if that doesn’t work, the only other solution is to slow everyone else down so they can all cross the finish line at the same time. While no child would be left behind, the whole country pays the price. OK, not the whole country. Just those that can’t afford to pay for the public school system and have enough left over to pay for private school.

AX

The current health care law has unconstitutional mandates for compelling individuals to purchase health insurance from private companies. Although in past entries we have suggested that it may be a good idea have citizens show in some way that they have some means of providing for their own health care costs, that idea always had problems. While the very wealthy may be able to show complete self insurability; determining where to set the bar of minimum level coverage is problematic. Additionally, the current law forbids exclusion for pre-existing conditions, but the penalty for failing to have insurance is less than almost any policy. Buying insurance on the way to the hospital isn’t insurance, it’s cost shifting. Shifting from you to someone else. All this does is make insurance companies nonviable.

There is a much better and simpler way to ensure that everyone has a level of health care available to them that is reasonable. Setting up government health care facilities that are open to the public and only provide a predetermined level of care. Because anyone that makes it to the door is treated, we would indeed have universal coverage. The level of treatment would be limited in several aspects. Elective cosmetic procedures would not provided at these facilities. Only cosmetic surgeries that are medically necessary would be covered. Three or four patients per room would be the norm. The hospitals and clinics would be largely self regulating in the level of treatment because of budgets. The budgets would hold at reasonable levels in much the same way welfare and food stamps don’t runaway. Because some 85% of the population has health insurance now, if that figure doesn’t change (and it shouldn’t significantly), the people paying without benefiting would want to keep the budgets to a reasonable level that allows those in need to receive treatment without breaking the bank.

Employers and individuals that have or provide insurance would not be eager to give it up because the benefits are still valuable compared to the government system. Having a separate system allows those treated in the government facility the dignity of not walking past the single occupant room where someone just had a “not government covered” procedure.

The education system works in this same way now. Everyone pays for the government system, but those who wish to pay extra can take advantage of a better, separate private system and all people are compelled to show that their children are covered by some sort of education (including home home schooling, which would be the equivalent of being self insured). Public and private education levels are not the same but government funding does not require equity of outcome. The government schools will continue to provide education to failing students until they either progress or drop out on their own. The hospitals would be no different.

Many hospitals already operate in a manner  similar to this concept already. Almost anyone that lives in a big city can think of facilities they would rather go to compared to others. Usually the least preferred hospitals are the heavily subsidized facilities. To attempt to equalize the conditions in the various hospitals by law is to eliminate the reward for achievement in a country that became the best on Earth by promoting the idea that you get what you earn. If no matter how hard you work you can never get ahead, why even try?

AX

So, there you are having a conversation with a pro-big -government type and he is arguing that the Federal Government should get involved in your life in some way. It really doesn’t matter what the discussion is about because the Feds have no business in your personal life. Call it health insurance or schools or whatever. You try to make that point, but your not getting far because you can’t come up with any time that the Feds have been messing with someone you know. So, you want to whip out the slippery slope argument, but your afraid he’s just going to call you paranoid. It’s OK, just because your paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t coming after you.

Try asking a few questions just to get a feel for how your big-gov pal really feels about a government getting in their backyard. Here’s a few to get started. “Do you think the Fed should regulate farming?” (Obvious answer, but you are putting him in a comfortable mood.) “Should the Fed regulate ALL farming?” (again expect an affirmative answer, but if he strays, he’s going in the direction you want anyway.) “Should people be allowed to eat what they grow?” (Duh.) “So, if you have a garden and eat what you grow, should the Feds regulate what you grow even if you never sell it?” (If they haven’t said no, reiterate that this is food and is for you and your family and no one else, and that you are not talking about during times of war. By this time, he should be wondering where you are going with this. Good, we’re getting there.) “Let’s say that the Government decides to fix the price of food, for the public good of course, and part of the bill that regulates the price of the food and regulates how much money farmers earn, for their own good of course, also allows the Feds to monitor, regulate, and fine you for non-compliance for just growing yourself some food. Are you OK with the Feds fining you for growing your own food?” (You’ll probably have to repeat that last bit a couple of times.)

If you are speaking with someone that actually believes that it is just fine for the Federal Government to impose penalties on individuals for growing a garden, you can try making the state’s rights versus Federal Government case, but the wall behind him is more likely to be persuaded. At this point, your best bet is just try to get some understanding behind why he thinks command/control totalitarian governments are better and give up on reasoning your way through a debate. You can’t win against faith based arguments.

If, on the other hand, you are talking to someone that sees that bureaucrats  in Washington D.C. should not concern themselves with an individual’s garden, you are almost ready to go for the kill. With a bit of luck or persuasion, your adversary should be calling you paranoid (yes, we want this now). If not, keep digging. Make the case a little by saying that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Federal Congress could seize that control. Now throw in that even if you had already planted and grown your garden, so long as you haven’t harvested yet, the law would not be retroactive.  So, the Feds could control price, the pay for farmers, and how much food is grown by whom. All because of economic conditions, not war.

We are looking for him to say something like; “That’s never going to happen.” If you can get there, you win because it already has. And it was upheld by the Supreme Court.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended in May1941 (before we entered the war), allows for exactly what was described above for wheat and other named foods. Now you may not grow wheat. And it is true that under certain rules, a small farm could be exempted from fines (although not regulation). The logic behind supporting this legislation is that if you don’t buy your food on the open market, that loss in the marketplace affects the price of goods, and therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause gives authority. So the only question left for your hapless foe is; “What else do you not buy that the Government may want to know about?”

Lest anyone think that this was some obscure case back in the forties that only applied to large farms. It has been used as precedent to regulate what is grown inside people’s houses this quite recently. The Supreme Court has ruled (2005) that the Federal Government may regulate certain plants (marijuana) even though state law makes possession and consumption legal. Overriding state medical use laws, the Feds can enter your house and arrest you even if your state has changed its laws to reflect the will of the body politic. Although the original offending law was passed and held constitutional during a time of economic depression, 2005 was no such time. You may be considering that the 05 decision was the Court and not Congress. True, but that only goes to show that we must be very careful what gets passed when conditions are right to take steps toward oppression. The original case came before the Court because of a law. Many years later, the Feds use the same law (or the court precedent that directly resulted from the law) to empower the Federal Government and reduce not only state’s rights, but individual’s as well.

Here at AmendmentX.info we try not to speculate more than… well,  some. But it is difficult to imagine the person who is pro government  wanting one government that they can’t control (Federal, because other states get a voice too) overriding the state law they just fought for and going to jail for smoking pot they thought was legal. Perhaps these people forget that the Feds do more than just give away other people’s money.

We don’t have to  guess where all slippery slopes lead. The end of the road for big government is your living room.

AX