McCarthy Out

I did not like the choice of McCarthy as speaker.  He has been in DC too long.  He is part of the swamp.  Republican voters are not in favor of more money for Ukraine.  As part of a continuing resolution, McCarthy agreed to send more money to Ukraine.  And why are we doing a continuing resolution?  What happened to the idea of drafting a budget and passing it?  We've had months to write a budget.  No, we're just going to spend willy nilly?  Sigh.  When looking at how thin was McCarthy's election to the job, he should have been more wary.  McCarthy bargained with the Democrats to get them what they wanted and they repaid him by joining a tiny cadre of Republicans to kick him out of the speakership.

Much as McCarthy may have deserved this fate, does it advance the goals of the Freedom Caucus?  Many say no.  All those Republicans who voted to keep McCarthy are unlikely to rubber stamp whoever the Freedom Caucus want in the job.  With aisles crossed to kick McCarthy out, it is possible that aisles will be crossed to get his replacement.  If so, the speakership will move left toward the Democrats rather than right toward the Freedom Caucus.  If the establishment Republicans disliked Matt Gaetz before, he is downright hated now.

However, it is important to know that the US is in a downward spiral.  The borders are so out of control that the mayor of New York City has railed against immigrants.  The debt has grown by $7 trillion in the last 3 years.  The Congress shows more interest in Ukraine than the United States.  The president is clearly suffering age-related dementia.  So are some of the leaders in the Congress.  Criminals are coddled and victims are charged when they defend themselves.  Insanity reins.  Throwing a wrench into this system might be helpful.  Worst case, it brings the inevitable crash forward, but we are on the path to destruction.

Let the government shutdown for a few months and have the states fend for themselves.  Really, the federal government does more harm than good these days.

Impeach Biden?

Does President Biden deserve to be impeached?  Yes.  Should Congress impeach him?  No.  With the current makeup of the House and Senate, an impeachment will go nowhere.  Looking at the case of Adam Schiff's censure, not a single Democrat voted in favor.  It was a partisan vote despite the undeniable fact that Schiff lied repeatedly and publicly about evidence of Russian collusion.  Though the House could muster the votes for impeachment, the Democrat-dominated Senate will not vote to convict.  Like both of Trump's impeachments, it will come to nothing other than a waste of time and money.

Instead, how about a censure?  Andrew Jackson was censured for defunding the Bank of the United States.  Censure Biden for weaponizing the Department of Justice, Ukraine kickbacks, failure to maintain the US border, or raising Hunter.  The possibilities are endless.  Of course, whatever is chosen, it will be a case of style over substance.  The president and the press will decry Congress for partisanship, but when the firestorm of words subside, nothing will change.  If anything, Biden will come out stronger.  Why?  It must be remembered that the media is overwhelmingly Democratic and/or left-leaning.  It is virtually impossible in that arena for Republicans to win a PR battle.

How about using the power of the purse to defund the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and the like?  Per the Constitution, all spending must originate in the House of Representatives.  Cut funding and hold the line.  I've been suggesting that course of action for more than a decade, but Congress has yet to do it.  This path would have substance.  Congress is detailed in Article 1 of the Constitution because the founders viewed it as the most important branch of government.  We the People are most reflected in the House of Representatives.  Take that seriously, Speaker McCarthy.

Schiff Censured

“...for years Representative Schiff abused this trust by citing evidence of collusion that—as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham—does not exist”

Throughout the Trump presidency, Representative Adam Schiff repeatedly said that he had seen definitive evidence of Trump's guilt.  Oh, he couldn't show it to the public because it was locked in the SCIF and only a handful of people with clearance could view it, but you could trust him.  No, apparently not.  This is why you censure.

The last effort to censure Schiff went down to defeat when 20 Republicans 'defected.'  Of course, the last effort also levied a $16 million fine, which was inappropriate.  We can't have Congress fining rivals into bankruptcy.  Here we have a 'clean' censure.  If only Congress could write legislation as cleanly.

Congress Makes Law, Not the EPA

The Supreme Court has nixed a 'regulation' that the EPA sought to inflict.  The EPA argued that it was merely making regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act.  In West Virginia v. EPA, the court decided that the agency did not have unlimited regulating powers.  The court held that such dramatic changes in regulation must be enacted by Congress.  Precisely!  As I recently noted, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states that All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.  For far too long, these alphabet agencies have had free rein to legislate by regulation without Congressional input.  Congress loves this state of affairs as it centralizes more power in the capitol without the Representatives and Senators besmirching their voting records with the onerous regulations.  Now, if the Congress wants to regulate coal mines out of existence, they have to legislate.  Even Democrats in safe districts don't want to give that kind of ammunition to a rival candidate.

If Congress didn't write the law and the President didn't sign it, it's invalid.  It's bureaucratic overreach.  Where Trump failed to defeat the administrative state (AKA Drain the Swamp), the Supreme Court may succeed by removing its regulatory authority.

Political Show Trial

It is a given that Trump cannot be convicted.  In any normal proceeding, the prosecutor would drop the case rather than have the jury acquit.  It is a waste of time and money to pursue a case that cannot be won.  So what is the point?

First, it is a political show trial.  The winning party wants to march the losing party around and throw rotten fruit.  Yeah, this is just the thing to promote 'unity' in the wake of a disputed election.  Brilliant.

Second, it is a distraction.  During the Obama Administration, there was always the latest scandal - at least on Fox News - that was overshadowed by the next one before the last one played out.  It turned out that the press, and the public, have a short attention span.  Obama would do something - say, the Iran Deal or drone strike an American in the Middle East, or say you could keep your doctor, etc - and the press would jump on it.  Before the story could really rise to the level of a national scandal, he'd rollout something else that would be the new feeding frenzy, the last one forgotten.  It was a surprisingly effective tactic.  In fact, because none of the stories was ever pursued in depth, he left office with a supposedly scandal-free administration.  Trump did something very similar.  He would diminish a war hero, imply a rival's father was involved in the Kennedy Assassination, spout demeaning nicknames, attack the press as fake news, and so forth.  While the media frothed on about his bad manners, he would advance his agenda out of sight.  While a pointless impeachment unfolds, all eyes will be on it.  What is going on where it matters?

Third, demonstrate the uselessness of the government.  Congress doesn't really do anything.  Despite being the first branch of government, it has voluntarily reduced itself to the third.  Each party plays defense for their guy in the White House and mostly follows the president's lead.  Rather than risk angering the voters by making any real decisions, they delegate all the tough decisions to the courts - who can't be voted out - or various bureaucrats - who also can't be voted out.

Forced to choose, I would select "all of the above."

Support for AOC

To my complete surprise, I find myself in agreement with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She has proposed that elected representatives should be barred from becoming lobbyists upon 'retiring' from Congress.  This practice is similar to insider trading.  The problem isn't just elected representatives.  How many regulators leave the various government agencies to then turn around and lobby their former colleagues on behalf of the industry being regulated?  Ted Cruz offered support, suggesting a lifetime ban on former members becoming lobbyists.  Though I like the goal, I suspect courts would strike down such a law.  Are there other professions from which people can be banned except in the case of conviction of a crime?  Even so, I hope to see the Ocasio-Cortez-Cruz bill proposed in Congress.  I give it long odds at getting through the House or Senate but Trump would gladly sign it.

Mutiny of the Deep State

Here is a story about how federal employees are defying President Trump and his appointees.  The story is generally sympathetic to the mutineers.  Working in government is not a right.  Long tenure does not mean that you get to set policy.  Love him or hate him, President Trump is the chief executive.  He's the boss, the top dog, the big cheese, the orange overlord.  When the Obama Department of Justice declined to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation after they had loitered with clubs at a polling station during the 2008 election, J. Christian Adams resigned and became a critic outside of government.  He disagreed with the decision of President Obama and his appointees but didn't become some mole in the administration who would leak classified data.  Too often, that is what is happening now.

 

The deep state, the regulatory state, the bureaucracy, or whatever else one might call it is profoundly unconstitutional.  The Constitution says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."  The EPA is not the Congress and yet the Federal Register returns 14,640 documents regarding EPA rules.  These rules are binding on the citizenry but they were not legislated by elected representatives; they were written by career bureaucrats who remain in their jobs for decades, regardless of which party is in office.  There are so many of these bureaucracies that Congress doesn't have the time for anything but cursory oversight.  Worse, the Congress has passed laws that limit the executive's authority (that's also unconstitutional) in managing these almost independent fiefdoms of regulatory power.  ANY rule or regulation that can result in a penalty must be legislated by the Congress.  By outsourcing legislative power under the euphemism 'regulation,' the government has experienced massive growth.

 

Sticking with the EPA, here are a few of the arms within the agency:

 

1. Office of Policy: The OP creates the regulations and is the effective legislative branch of the EPA.

2. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:  The OECA enforces the regulations, basically what an executive branch does.

3. Office of Administrative Law Judges: The OALJ adjudicates the regulations and is the judicial branch.

 

Look how convenient that is: legislative, executive, and judicial all in one agency.  Who needs separation of powers?  The separation of powers exists to prevent the consolidation of power into one entity but too many of these regulatory agencies are self-contained realms whose various parts are unlikely to provide a fair hearing to those it chooses to harass.

 

The swamp likes this cozy arrangement and is alarmed by Trump's threat to drain it, thus the mutiny.

Debt Limit Reached

The debt limit has been reached and the government can spend no more unless Congress raises or suspends the debt limit.  This could be a huge boon to Trump.  By simply vetoing any efforts to raise the debt limit, the president can hold the line on spending.  As the chief executive, it is up to him to decide where to cut spending in order to hold that line until Congress passes a new budget.  Even with a new budget, that debt limit is a wall on overspending.  The government will have to spend only what it collects in taxes!  Spending within our means!  What a concept!  Let the layoffs begin!

Obamacare 2.0

Back in 2009 and 2010, the Republicans managed to hold together and vote 100% in opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare sector.  When they took over the House in January 2011, the repeal bills began.  Once the Republicans captured the Senate, a repeal bill actually made it to Obama's desk where he - unsurprisingly - vetoed it.  Now, rather than just erase this disaster and have US law return to what it was in February 2010 (the month before the ACA was signed into law), they are having second thoughts.  The Democrats took the hit - having lost over one thousand elective offices across the country during Obama's Presidency - so the Republicans figure why give up the power that Democrats committed political suicide to acquire.  Really, let's not be hasty.  Is it any wonder I left the Republican Party?

Apparently, the free market is a foreign concept to the party that used to champion free markets.  Have they not noticed that goods and services provided by the free market see tremendous improvement over time and also drop in price?  Here is a great graph that shows how prices have changed over the last 20 years.  All those things government has sought to make more affordable (e.g. college, health care, housing, food) have seen massive cost increases.  Those items left to the private market (e.g. clothing, cars, furniture, cellphone plans, TVs) has seen prices flat or dramatically fall.  Maybe there is a correlation?

 

Among the crazy things the Republicans have decided to retain is the guarantee of coverage for those with a pre-existing condition.  That would be like allowing a homeowner to buy insurance while the house was on fire.  The fire is a pre-existing condition; how can the insurance company deny?  That isn't how insurance works.  Insurance is a hedge against disaster, not a payment plan for routine costs.  No one buys gas or gets their tires rotated through a copay.  Why doesn't health insurance work that way?

 

The best thing that Congress could do would be to repeal the whole enchilada.  And then just keep repealing until there are no national laws or regulations regarding health care.  Prices would plummet, insurance would transform to only paying for catastrophic care, and the states could setup modest programs to cover the poor.  The Constitution does not authorize the government to do anything with regard to health care.  Set the market free and it will do wonders.  The drawback is that government would have less power over the peasants and fewer dollars to spend.

Repeal Deceit

During the Obama Presidency, the Republican Congress managed to pass Obamacare repeal bills multiple times.  In January of last year, a bill made it through the House and the Senate.  It landed on Obama's desk where he vetoed it.  Where is that bill?  Why not brush that off and send it to the White House?  How difficult is that?  The fact that someone at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue will actually sign it is why they haven't done it.  They were fearless when Obama was sure to veto but now they balk.  Those previous bills were nothing but fodder for the rubes back home.  They were gaming their voters, calling for repeal when there was no hope but hesitating when victory is at hand.  In truth, they never wanted it repealed.  Their actions have exposed their words as hollow.  Distrust politicians always.

 

To provide cover to the exposed charlatans, Democratic operatives are flooding Republican townhalls and making a scene about Obamacare.  See, the voters don't want us a to repeal it.  Let's not be hasty in repealing it.  Maybe we can repair it.  Once government has seized power over a sector, it is loath to surrender it.

 

What is interesting is that the point of the ACA is to collapse.  Ideally, Hillary would be president and be able to proclaim that private insurance companies were too greedy and caused the collapse so now a complete government takeover would be required.  Maybe we can implement the Cuban healthcare system.  So, repeal or not, it is crumbling.  With Trump having ordered the IRS to relax enforcement of the 'tax' portion of the law, the individual mandate is at an end.  Perhaps the spineless Republicans want to wait for the collapse without having cast any votes.  It is one thing to watch as the Leaning Tower of Pisa falls over but something different if you gave it a push.

Crony Capitalism

Here is a good discussion of crony capitalism.  He covers the topic well and with great brevity.  Bigger government inevitably leads to more lobbying to capture some of that growing pool of money.  You want to get rid of lobbyists?  Cut the amount of money government spends.  With a $4 trillion budget up for grabs, anyone who can field a lobbyist is going to try to siphon some of that cash.  Duh!  I have mentioned before that it is more of a protection racket.  Microsoft spent squat to lobby the government.  The government took notice of this company gushing with cash and wanted its cut.  Voila!  Suddenly, we have the United States v. Microsoft Corporation, where Microsoft was dragged to court for daring to give their product - Internet Explorer - away for free.  Monopolist!!!  However, Microsoft now has lobbyists in Washington, paying the protection money that Congress demands lest further punitive action is taken.

 

Whether one sees the issue as government shaking down private enterprise or private enterprise buying off government officials or some combination of the two, an expansive government is the root cause.  Limit government to limit the crony capitalism.

Who needs Congress?

Today, President Obama passed the Dream Act.  Congress proved unable to pass it so the President decided to do it on his own.  One wonders what other laws Congress has failed to pass that the President will start enforcing.  There has been talk of the EPA imposing Cap & Trade.  Regardless of one's party affiliation, this should be of great concern.  That Nancy Pelosi came out in favor of this lawlessness shows that she doesn't understand the precedent or, more likely, she doesn't care as long as she gets her way.  If she doesn't squawk when a Democratic president usurps the legislative authority of Congress, what will she say when a Republican does the same?

There was much complaint that Bush did end runs around Congress.  However, he asked for and received Congressional approval for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama did not get approval for Libya, thus breaking the War Powers Resolution.  It is worth noting that the Congress passed that in 1973 because Nixon bombed Cambodia without Congressional approval.  Bush failed to pass his Amnesty through Congress but did not thereafter attempt to impose it executively.  Obama did not see the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act as an impediment to enforcing it.  Congress refused to pass legislation to save GM and Chrysler with federal loans.  Both Bush and Obama provided those loans anyway; that's embezzling.  Misappropriation of funds is an impeachable offense but Congress let them both get away with it.  Congress is required to pass a budget each year and yet has not passed one in 3 years.  Congress is complicit in making itself irrelevant.

In Ancient Rome, the Senate was the ruling body of the nation for centuries.  The Consuls - there were two elected each year - were analogous to the Presidency.  The power of the Roman Senate was overtaken by the increasing power of the consuls until the positions flipped.  Senator became a ceremonial role, a sinecure for the elites or a prize to be given by the emperor.  If the Presidency can pass law and congress calmly allows such usurpation, then who needs congress?  Are we still a republic?

Separation of Powers

Everyone is familiar with the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  This is probably the first thing one learns in civics in the United States.  Congress writes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the Supreme Court adjudicates the laws.  Simple, right?

The Presidency has taken upon itself some legislative functions.  Of course, the Congress is complicit in this, as it must be.  The Constitution invests only the Congress with the authority to legislate but the Congress time and again delegates this power to newly-minted Executive agencies that then regulate.  This is outsourced legislation.  To members of Congress, this is great.  Senator Bob can claim credit for creating this or that agency and thus showing his concern for this or that issue but also deny any responsibility if the regulations prove onerous or expensive.  At that point, the President needs to address the issue.  Perhaps there will be meaningless hearings that accomplish nothing but look serious and responsible.

The President cannot delegate his veto pen to his chief of staff.  He cannot delegate Commander in Chief to his Defense Secretary.  The Constitution allocates these to the President and he cannot then divest himself of them.  The Supreme Court cannot outsource its role as Court of Final Appeal to a law clerk.  By the same token, the Congress cannot outsource legislation.  Laws written by persons who have not been given the Consent of the Governed should be null and void.  We the People did not vote for Bureaucrat Bill.  When Bureaucrat Bill writes a law, We the People cannot vote him out if we are unhappy with his legislation.

If Congress had to pass all laws - as was intended - we'd have a lot fewer laws.  Laws would not run hundreds or thousands of pages which the legislators didn't have time to read.  There would not be passages that allocated 'rule making' or 'regulation' to this or that cabinet Secretary.

Separation of Powers existed to preserve the liberty of We the People.  The legislator who passes the law doesn't then enforce it.  The policeman who makes the arrest is not also the judge at the trial.  The judge who adjudicates the laws doesn't also legislate.  The conflict of interests is clear on this basic level.  But when the Congress grants legislative authority to the President, few see the parallel.  When judges create law through their rulings, too many are unfazed.  Separation of Powers protects liberty while their combination invites tyranny.



Oklahoma City Redux

Yes, already I read stories that Congresswoman Giffords was shot because of the vitriolic rhetoric from, just for example, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement. Those darned right wingers are pushing people to violence again. When Obama says you must 'punish your enemies' or wants to know 'whose ass to kick' or has his 'boot on the neck' or such, that isn't vitriolic rhetoric. However, when Sarah Palin 'targets' the 8th District in AZ with a graphic showing a cross hair, well, that's over the line. Of course someone is going to go on a shooting rampage.

Much like the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building last year, this guy is a crackpot. I watched a couple of his YouTube slide shows and they were pretty kooky. He really does talk about mind control through grammar and declares that sadly only 5% of Americans dream. Of interest, he had a list of his favorite books on his profile. Nothing by any contemporary right wingers but he did mention We The Living (Ayn Rand), The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx), Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler), The Republic (Plato), and Meno (Plato). Notably missing are any books by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley, etc. A classmate of his reportedly says he was a left winger.

As a congresswoman has been shot, there is already a push to provide security for all members of congress. I vote no. You don't change policy for one incident. When congressmen are being gunned down on a regular basis, then we can talk. If we change nothing, the vast majority (99%+)of congressmen will be fine. In any case, we can't afford yet another federal agency.