tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-299640722024-03-12T19:44:11.476-05:00Worldview and the JudiciaryJim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-49585024179961696812011-07-21T20:48:00.000-05:002011-07-21T20:49:57.666-05:00Toothless Platitudes Won’t Solve Debt Crisis<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I like Sen. Tom Coburn.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In 2007, after the electorate threw out his party’s majority in the Senate, Coburn <a href="http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/tom-coburn-senator">said</a>:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">I think [American voters were] wise to want change. The Republicans didn't do what they said they were going to do. They deserve the wrath of the voters."<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Refreshing.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Coburn was and is a fearless opponent of congressional earmarks, bucking his own party members when they sought to benefit their state at the expense of the nation (Coburn was the Senator who blew the whistle on Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere”).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>According to a 2007 <a href="http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/tom-coburn-senator?currentPage=2">GQ article</a>, Senator Coburn wants the American public to know “how it works in Washington, how the machine keeps itself running, and the favors get traded, and the deals get struck, and the bridges to nowhere are going up <i>every day</i>. He wants you to know that the United States Congress simply <i>cannot stop itself</i>—that both parties are in on the fix, backing each other and looking the other way, and that in the spirit of bipartisan waste, they manage to blow $500 billion more than they collect in taxes <i>every single year</i>.” Ahh, the “good old days” when the federal deficit was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">only $500 billion a year!</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Given his reputation as a fiscal hawk, I was not surprised when Sen. Coburn became a member of the Bowles-Simpson Debt Reduction Commission, nor was I surprised when Sen. Coburn continued this effort by becoming a member of the “Gang of Six.” <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Given the pap that constitutes the Gang of Six proposal endorsed by the President yesterday, I see now why Coburn walked out of the Gang of Six weeks ago.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The Christian Science Monitor today <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0719/Gang-of-Six-plan-hailed-as-debt-ceiling-breakthrough.-What-s-in-it">reported</a> on the elements of the Gang of Six proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Some of these elements are a bill that cuts $500 billion in discretionary spending over 10 years (remember that in 2007 Congress overspent its revenue by the same amount in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">one </i>year), a congressional pay freeze (unlike many employees today, Congressmen have had pay raises the last few years), the sale of “unused federal property” (don’t expect top dollar in this real estate market!), and “new discretionary spending caps through 2015.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“Spending caps” sounds good, but Congress already tried this years ago and it failed. In 1985, because of rising deficits Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, legislation sponsored by Sens. Gramm, Rudman, and Hollings.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This legislation, popularly known as “Gramm-Rudman,” provided for automatic spending cuts of “non-exempt funds” if the budget failed to reach established targets.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Not surprisingly, in five years Congress failed to pass a budget that met the established targets, and because Congress had exempted a big portion of the budget, Gramm-Rudman required a <a href="http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2355/2412111/Documents_Library/gramm.htm">32% reduction in defense spending</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This was unacceptable, and therefore Congress scrapped Gramm-Rudman and enacted the current system which caps spending and requires Congress to identify and secure new revenues for new spending (the “pay-as-you-go” requirement).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We have all seen how well this has worked over the past five years.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The <a href="http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/tom-coburn-senator#ixzz1SeTVD58z">GQ article</a> on Sen. Coburn makes the point that “the members of the United States Congress will spend your money <i>just because they can</i>. That they'll do it even when they <i>can't</i>.” </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">President Reagan when discussing a nuclear arms treaty with the Soviet Union famously quipped: “Trust but verify.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He never made a similar comment about Congress, perhaps because he found Congress less trustworthy on budget matters.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The only way to save our public treasury and economic future for our children and grandchildren is to restrain our representatives.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Just like the Founders restrained government from interfering with citizens’ religious convictions, free speech, freedom of assembly, warrantless intrusions into our homes, right to counsel during criminal proceedings and all the other elements of our Bill of Rights, we need a constitutional restraint from government overspending.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We need the federal government to pay for its spending by raising revenue, suffering electoral consequences for either raising taxes or not spending enough money.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Just like the states and our households, the federal government must balance its budget, and the only way to hold the government accountable is a constitutional amendment with a provision giving taxpayers the standing to sue if the federal government’s budget is not balanced. </span></p>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-17144703112634755992011-07-21T20:47:00.000-05:002011-07-21T20:48:30.369-05:00Who Shuts Down the Government According to the Constitution?<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Shutting down government, or at least stalling its progress, seems to be a rite of spring these days.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Last year a Republican filibuster delayed passage of the health care reform bill in the U.S. Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This spring, the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate and the Indiana House decided to shut down reform efforts in their states by taking their “spring break” in, of all places, Democratic-controlled Illinois (much to the delight of the Illinois hoteliers).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Similarly, this spring there has also been much talk about a federal government shut down.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In this discussion, however, I have seen little coverage on what the Constitution says about responsibility for a federal government shut down.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the Constitution, there is a rather obscure provision known as the Origination Clause.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This Clause, which is found in Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, states simply that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Although this Clause contains no express words of “shut down” or similar import, it does designate responsibility for supplying government with money, which of course allows it to operate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In conformity with this process, all recent Continuing Resolutions to fund government have originated in the House of Representatives.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Starting the process of funding government in the body closest to the will of the electorate was not an original idea for the Founders.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>England for many years prior to our nation’s founding required money bills to start in the House of Commons which makes eminently good sense – the representatives of those who pay the taxes should have the first say in what those taxes will be.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">James Madison, our fourth President and the Father of the Constitution, noted the importance of the Origination Clause in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Federalist</i> No. 58.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He wrote: “The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse . . . [which] may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people . . .” This powerful weapon, this power of the purse, lies in the hands of those public officials who must face the electorate every two years and therefore are most sensitive to the will of the people, the members of the House of Representatives. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Origination Clause gives the House the power to start the process of taxing and spending, but this power is not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">exclusive.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></i>That is, in our system of checks and balances, bills to fund the government, like other legislation, must also be approved by the Senate and then signed by the President before they become law.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The House of Representatives fulfills its constitutional role to fund government if it passes a budget and then forwards it to the Senate for consideration. The Senate, of course, may not agree with the budget proposed by the House.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Similarly, the President may disagree with the budget passed by the House and Senate and therefore veto it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If the Senate and President disagree with the House passed budget, however, it is they, and not the House, that is deciding to shut down government.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The Senate and President would assure continuance of government by agreeing with the budget passed by the House.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Please recognize that this analysis of the Origination Clause does not favor either party.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Currently the Republicans control the House as the result of the last election.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They want to spend less money than the Democrats in the Senate and the President.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If the House passes a bill cutting spending and the Senate and/or President refuses to accept it, it is the Democratic Senate or President Obama who is shutting down the government and not the Republican House.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Please note, however, that when the voters return the House to Democratic control in the future and the Senate or the presidency is controlled by the Republicans, a budget passed by the House but refused by the Senate or President will also result in government shut-down but this time caused by the Republicans.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Origination Clause gives responsibility for initiating and passing a budget to the body that can be thrown out of office every two years.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The House Republicans are, just like their Democratic predecessors, responsible directly to the will of the electorate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They should respond to the public who voted them into office.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They will fulfill their constitutional responsibility by passing a budget bill the House majority finds acceptable.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If this bill is unacceptable to the Democratic controlled Senate and Executive Branch, they can refuse it and therefore cause the government to run out of funds.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Such a shut down, of course, would be the fault of the Democrats and not the House Republicans.</span></p>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-37997686688401993542009-11-07T22:52:00.000-05:002009-11-07T22:54:08.183-05:00Our Prosperity and Posterity<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; "><p></p><p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">Life in post-Revolution America was rough and bears some semblance to today. The new nation was deeply in debt because of governmental spending, and foreign lenders refused to accept our paper money, insisting instead on gold. When debtors could not pay their loans, the banks started a wave of foreclosures in Massachusetts, took possession of farms and homes, and jailed debtors. Hundreds of people coalesced around Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary War veteran, who led his “army” in shutting down courts to stop foreclosures and then freeing imprisoned debtors. Neither the national or state government was willing or able to respond, so a group of Bostonians paid for an armed militia to go to western Massachusetts, reopen the courts, and defeat and arrest Shays and his army. Within a few months of this incident, the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">Shays’ Rebellion must have been on the mind of those gathered in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, since the Preamble states that the Constitution’s purposes include “to insure domestic Tranquility,” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .” These “Blessings of Liberty” included personal and economic freedom so Americans and their posterity could pursue “happiness” (the acquisition of property), which was identified as an “unalienable” right in the Declaration of Independence eleven years previously.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">Regarding securing economic freedom for their posterity, the Founding Generation and their immediate successors unlike today paid off their national debt. Primarily because of the Revolutionary War, the national debt in 1791 stood at $75 <i>million</i>. This debt grew but by 1835, America was debt free. The Civil War caused the national debt to climb for the first time into the <i>billions </i>($2.7 billion after the war), but this debt stayed rather stable until World War I pushed the national debt to $22 billion. The debt was paid down in the 1920s to $16 billion, until the social spending of the New Deal and World War II exploded the debt <i>1600% </i>to an amount equal to the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S. in one year. With the rapid expansion of the economy after World War II, the percentage of debt to GDP fell while the debt increased primarily due to inflation. The debt passed $1 <i>trillion </i>in 1982, doubled to $2 trillion in 1986, and then added another trillion dollars in debt in 1990, 1992, 1996, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008. This raging appetite for debt continues. The </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#0000FF;"><u>Congressional Budget Office</u></span></a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"> in March estimated that the current $10 trillion debt would <i>double</i> in ten years based on President Obama’s budget. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">Although the Cold War, Vietnam and Iraq Wars, and other overseas ventures have consumed considerable resources, we have not had a world war for 60 years. Rather, our continuing huge budget deficits and resulting mountains of debt are attributable to expensive social programs passed largely by Democrats (who failed to raise taxes to cover the new expenses) and tax cuts passed largely by Republicans (who failed to cut spending). In other words, for the past 25 years our leaders have borrowed money so we could spend it on ourselves either for retirement benefits, prescription drugs, health care for the elderly, or simply more consumer spending – a continuing legacy of the “Me Generation.” The debt, and the burgeoning interest on the debt, we leave to our children and grandchildren. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">By adding “…and our posterity” to the Constitution’s Preamble, the Founders placed upon themselves and all subsequent generations (certainly including us) a profound moral duty which we have sorely neglected. Such neglect is reason enough for the rise of future Daniel Shays. Whereas the Founders in gaining independence sacrificed their prosperity for their posterity, we have sacrificed our posterity for our prosperity.</span></p><p></p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-22534832619549200232009-05-27T17:06:00.002-05:002009-11-07T23:21:58.691-05:00Good Politics but Unlikely Bipartisanship<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"></span></span></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">President Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor as his first nominee to the Supreme Court certainly is good politics. Given Judge Sotomayor’s gender, ethnicity, and Roman Catholic background (she graduated in 1972 from Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx), the President tipped his hat to three important voting constituencies that favored him much more than John Kerry.</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Good politics, however, does not necessarily ensure a good Supreme Court pick. Take President Eisenhower, for example. His first nomination (as Chief Justice) was a political rival for the 1952 Republican presidential nomination, and he later picked a New Jersey Catholic to curry the favor of northeast voters in the 1956 election. After Eisenhower left office, a reporter asked him whether he had made any mistakes as president. "Two," the former president replied. "They are both on the Supreme Court." Eisenhower’s selections of Earl Warren and William Brennan led to an unpopular explosion of criminal rights.</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Other examples abound, including the selection of the “stealth nominee” whom Judge Sotomayor will replace if confirmed by the Senate. At the press conference announcing David Souter’s nomination, President George H.W. Bush said five times that the future Justice Souter was "committed to interpreting, not making the law." In promoting David Souter to conservatives, White House Chief of Staff John Sununu described his fellow New Hampshire citizen Souter as a “home run,” which conservatives foolishly interpreted as a “home run” for their team.</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">With this pick, it is unlikely that President Obama is repeating the mistakes of these Republican Presidents. First of all, the President is not politically indebted to Ms. Sotomayor, and although he seeks to curry favor with the fastest growing element of the electorate, he is not selecting a conservative Hispanic. Perhaps most importantly, the President has a very healthy majority of fellow Democrats in the Senate, and therefore does not have the problem usually confronted by Republican Presidents (while Republicans have enjoyed the White House for 36 of the past 57 years, they have controlled the Senate for only 14 of those years).</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">With confirmation assured, President Obama nevertheless will seek votes from Republican senators so he can claim bipartisan support similar to that achieved by President Clinton (the Senate approved Clinton’s choices of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer by votes of 96-3 and 87-9, respectively). Such bipartisan support is unlikely, however, since Republicans in the Senate cannot simply “roll over” like they did for Ginsburg and Breyer after the pitched confirmation battles for Chief Justice Roberts (confirmed 78-22) and Justice Alito (confirmed 58-42). Rest assured that the confirmation process, however, will not be as rancorous as that of Roberts and Alito, since the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have no one comparable to Sen. Charles Schumer.</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Republican Senators seeking cover for voting for Sotomayor should not look to the fact that the first President Bush nominated her to the federal bench. First of all, historically the selection of federal district court judges has been the prerogative of the U.S. Senators from the state where the vacancy exists. The White House and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy review the recommendations, of course, but given the nature of the work (the overwhelming majority of the 338,000 criminal and civil cases filed in 2008 are routine in nature) and the fact that few of these cases (less than 200, and some of these are appeals of State Supreme Court decisions) actually go to the Supreme Court, great deference is given to the recommendation of the Senators.</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Moreover, any stamp of approval by the first Bush administration for Judge Sotomayor is particularly dubious because of the “New York Rule.” In New York (as well as other states that follow this practice), the two U.S. Senators divide their judicial selections with the U.S. Senator of the same party as the occupant of the White House getting three judicial picks and the Senator of the opposing party getting the fourth pick. The two U.S. Senators from New York during the first Bush administration were Republican Al D’Amato and Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Given Judge Sotomayor’s politics, she was most likely the pick of Senator Moynihan rather than Senator D’Amato, and the administration of George H.W. Bush merely complied with this recommendation.</span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Given the depleted ranks of Republican senators and their natures (which white Republican male senator from the South or West will want the role of being harsh to a Hispanic female?), the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor will not replicate the battles for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Another reason for concluding that Sotomayor is a good political choice for President Obama.</span></p></span><p></p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-15585582810638525972009-04-16T15:25:00.001-05:002009-11-07T23:22:12.650-05:00More Courts Imposing Their Values<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">With the Iowa Supreme Court overturning a state law banning homosexual marriage and the California Supreme Court pondering the same, it could be a tough month for democracy in America. The Iowa court earlier this month declared </span></span><a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">unconstitutional</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"> a statute similar to the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of </span></span><a href="http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">18 other states</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">. These Defense of Marriage Acts expressed the values of the popularly elected legislators and governors of these 18 states. The California Supreme Court is considering action even more egregious, this being overturning a constitutional amendment adopted directly by a majority of California voters in the last election. This California referendum, similar to the constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage passed by the citizens of </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_of_marriage_amendments_to_U.S._state_constitutions_by_type"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">29 different states</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">, expresses directly the values of the voters.</span></span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">The decision by the Iowa Supreme Court is not, of course, the first time a court has thwarted the will of the people. Courts in California are rather notorious for this, having ruled unconstitutional two popular referenda declaring illegal aliens ineligible for public services (Proposition 187) and seeking term limits on congressmen (Proposition 227), and also ruling unconstitutional California’s Defense of Marriage Act (a ruling that led to the constitutional amendment which the court is now considering). This thwarting of the will of the people is not limited to California. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1996 threw out a Colorado constitutional amendment approved by a majority of Colorado voters that prohibited any preferential treatment for homosexuals.</span></span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Each time a court overturns a referendum or statute expressing the values of the people or their elected representatives, confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law diminishes. The U.S. Supreme Court itself recognized this inevitable outcome of judicial action in one of the most closely watched cases of our generation, </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">. In </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Casey,</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">the Court reconsidered its 1973 decision of </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Roe v. Wade</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"> but this time, unlike previous abortion cases, the pro-lifers appeared to have the edge. Since 1973, the avowedly pro-life President Reagan had nominated three justices to the Supreme Court (Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and O’Connor), and the professed pro-life President George H.W. Bush had added two more (Justices Thomas and Souter). With the pro-life Chief Justice William Rehnquist solidly in favor of overturning </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Roe</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">, it appeared likely that the regulation of abortion would return back to the states for consideration of what, if any, protection the people’s representatives would give to unborn babies (prior to </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Roe v. Wade, </span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">some states gave little protection and some states extensive protection)</span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">.</span></span></em></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">The Court in </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Casey </span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">affirmed a woman’s right within limits to abort her baby. The important aspect of </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Casey </span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">for purposes of this article, however, is the reasoning provided by the three Republican appointees (Kennedy, Souter and O’Connor) who commanded the decision in this case. They wrote that in spite of the continued controversy and annual January marches on Washington, generations of women had come to expect the right to abort. More fundamentally, the three Justices noted that the root of the U.S. Supreme Court’s power resides “in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people’s acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation’s law means and to declare what it demands.” A large part of this legitimacy is based “on the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution [which] requires such continuity over time . . .”</span></span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Justice Scalia in his dissent directly addressed the legitimacy of the Court and the rule of law. He noted first of all that longevity of a ruling like </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Roe</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"> does not ensure its continued vitality and correctness – the “separate but equal” principles of </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Plessy v. Ferguson</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">continued for three generations of blacks and whites before being overturned in </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Brown v. Board of Education</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">. More importantly, Justice Scalia addressed the Court’s disregard of the expressed will of the people. He wrote: “As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we justices were doing essentially lawyers’ work up here – reading text and discerning our society’s traditional understanding of that text – the public pretty much left us alone. . . . But if in reality . . . our pronouncement of constitutional law rests primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people’s attitude towards us can be expected to be (ought to be) quite different. The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school – maybe better. . . . Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated . . .”</span></span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Yesterday’s Tea Parties demonstrate that ordinary people in America are frustrated because the will of the elite (a category that certainly includes the judiciary) seems to trump the will of the electorate. Iowa is certainly no exception to this perception. The more the courts flaunt the will and values of the people, the more the American people will question the legitimacy of the judiciary. At some point the people will simply reject the will of the rogue judiciary, leading to first sporadic and then more generalized break-down of the rule of law, which would have devastating consequences to the functioning of our society.</span></span></p><p align="left"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br />The courts can still forestall this by heeding the wisdom of Justice Scalia, who recognized that the values of five Supreme Court Justices must not trump the values of millions of American voters. Unless the judiciary wakes up, soon the American public will join the refrain of President Andrew Jackson, who said: “[Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”</span></span></p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-24424683823108728232009-04-07T11:01:00.001-05:002009-11-07T23:16:29.985-05:00Be Grateful Not to Work for AIG<span xmlns=""><p style="text-align: left;">As March Madness fades into April Apathy, one wonders what will next draw the attention of a sizeable portion of the American public. Will it be the latest apologies by our President, or will it be the looming tax deadline of April 15? My guess is that most American pragmatists will opt for the latter. For those, be grateful that you are not one of the current villains of America, the AIG bonus recipients.</p><p>I frankly never thought I would feel sorry for a Wall Street big shot who received in a bonus a multiple of what I make each year as a humble grad school prof. Yet, given the death threats some bonus recipients and their families have received from certain frenzied and pathetic members of the public, and the "encouragement" the AIG "bonus babies" have received from New York's Attorney General Cuomo (who apparently had little legal basis for demanding the return of the bonuses), one cannot help but feel some sympathy, particularly for those AIG executives who had absolutely nothing to do with the AIG practices that led to its demise and need for a bail-out. Particularly galling, of course, is the fact that the Democrats' <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123741741674677723.html">stimulus package</a> specifically permitted these bonuses in a bill that was not circulated for consideration prior to its vote (can any thinking person in light of this lack of order and courtesy to fellow congressmen trust the government in any way with our economic well-being?). My focus of today, however, is on the tax implications for the bonus recipients.<br /></p><p>AIG is, of course, a corporation, and as a corporation, it withholds from employee compensation such items as social security taxes, Medicare taxes, state income taxes, and federal income taxes (in fact, if AIG does not withhold taxes, goes bankrupt, and there are insufficient funds to pay the tax withholdings, the members of the Board of Directors are personally liable for them!). Therefore, following the normal course of business, AIG withheld from the recent bonuses the appropriate tax withholdings given to its executives. Assuming that the executives receiving a million dollar bonus were in the highest federal income tax bracket, were residents of New York City, filed joint tax returns with their spouses, and had $357,700 in other income (a reasonable assumption to make in light of the size of the bonus!), AIG would withhold as much as <a href="http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm">$320,362</a> in federal income taxes, <a href="http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp">$14,500 in Medicare taxes</a> (there is no cap on these unlike social security taxes), <a href="http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_NY.html">$77,700</a> in New York State income tax, and <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/services/business_tax_nys_income.shtml">$36,480</a> in New York City income tax. That leaves a little more than half a million dollars in the bonus (still a good paycheck!) for the executive, spouse, and family.<br /></p><p>New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo pursued these bonus recipients and according to his office's <a href="http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/mar/mar23a_09.html">press release</a>, nine of the top ten bonus recipients (15 of the top 20) had agreed "to give the bonuses back." But give it back to whom? AIG? The government?<br /></p><p>Please remember that having received and paid tax on the money, the AIG executives are free to dispose of it (spend it, invest it, donate it) as they see fit. What they do with the money, however, has consequences. Spending the money, of course, pleases the sellers of goods and services, and generates even more taxes for some government entities (the State and City of New York, for instance, with their respective sales taxes of <a href="http://ny.rand.org/stats/govtfin/salestax.html">4 percent and 8.375 percent</a>). Donating the money, however, raises other issues. If the entity receiving the donation is a charitable organization (church, school, etc.), the donation is tax deductible subject to certain limitations. If the receiving entity is not a charitable organization, the person making the gift cannot deduct the amount given from his income.<br /></p><p>AIG does not, of course, qualify as a charity since it was not organized for charitable or educational purposes (the fact that AIG is currently a "non-profit" and a subject of US Treasury "charity" does not count). It also is not yet an arm of the government (donations to government are also tax deductible). Therefore, "giving the money back" to AIG is a donation to a non-charitable organization, meaning that the donation is not deductible and therefore the government can keep the income taxes generated by the bonus.<br /></p><p>Lawyers or accountants more clever than me perhaps can structure this "donation" in such a way to minimize the inherent problems discussed above. Better yet, high priced lobbyists perhaps can add yet another provision to the Internal Revenue Code that is already the size of a big city phonebook. This legislative fix may be in the works, since the House AIG bonus confiscation bill excludes from income any amount if waived by the employee, although there remain problems with this as noted by the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123807922595548325.html">Wall Street Journal</a>. Nevertheless, it is unjust to even incur the expense of a high-priced tax attorney, accountant, or lobbyist to fix this mess caused by the negligence of Congress. In situations like this, the wisdom of Ronald Reagan becomes clearer and more necessary each day, particularly his statement that the "most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."<br /></p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-25548656202281204232008-10-14T11:00:00.001-05:002009-11-07T23:16:54.193-05:00Has the Federal Government Lost Its Legitimacy?<span xmlns=""><p style="text-align: left;">Yesterday at a campaign rally here in Virginia Beach, Gov. Sarah Palin <a href="http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_top_101308_mccain_preview.10ac0eb1e.html">stated</a> the following: "There's anger about the insider dealing of lobbyists. Anger about the greed on Wall Street. Anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite." Indeed, there is anger, righteous anger, and it is because Washington is no longer devoted to the public good; it is dedicated to self-promotion and self-preservation, and therefore has lost its claim to legitimacy.</p><p>Throwing an accusation at "Washington" is, of course, similar to using a hydrogen bomb when a cruise missile is much more appropriate. Let me, therefore, be more specific. Those congressmen who voted for the "Bail Out Bill," particularly after it was "porked up," have threatened the continued legitimacy of the federal government.<br /></p><p>Congress' powers are specified in Article I of the Constitution. Article I contains no specific power granting to Congress the authority to loan money to failing investment houses, or to invest in the stocks of creaking banks, or to buy securities composed of sub-prime mortgages given to poor credit risks. There is no authority granted to Congress in Article I to authorize bankruptcy judges to reduce interest rates on some mortgages, or to reduce principal on others.<br /></p><p>The best constitutional "hook" for the Bail Out monstrosity is the first sentence in Section 8 of Article I, which permits Congress to collect taxes and provide for the "general welfare of the United States." Note that Congress is not authorized to provide for just the "welfare" of the United States, but it is specifically limited to acts on behalf of the <em>general </em>welfare. This means, of course, that Congress is not empowered to benefit <em>special </em>interests, but must look to the <em>general welfare </em>of the republic.<br /></p><p>Not all financial institutions are failing, and the overwhelming majority of mortgages are being paid on time. Only a few banks and investment houses are failing, and these generally are the ones who through mismanagement made money on the subprime mortgages and are now facing the consequences of their mismanagement. The Bail Out benefits these <em>special</em> investment houses and those borrowers who through greed or sheer stupidity borrowed money when they should not. Benefiting the greedy and dumb, while giving no incentives to the frugal and wise, is not only unconstitutional, it is terrible public policy.<br /></p><p>The Bail Out Bill was first defeated in the House of Representatives before being considered in the Senate where pork was added to the pot. The Bill after passing the Senate was then returned to the House where enough members apparently liked the more pork laden "stew" to vote for it. The following tax breaks were in the final bill when passed by the House:<br /></p><ul style="margin-left: 72pt"><li>$223 million for Alaskan fisherman;<br /></li><li>$192 million for rum producers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico;<br /></li><li>$148 million for wool-producing companies;<br /></li><li>$128 million for manufacturers of car-racing tracks;<br /></li><li>$10 million for small television and film producers.<br /></li></ul><p><br />How can $192 million for rum producers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto be in the <em>general </em>interests of the United States as required by the Constitution? How can this be equitable without tax breaks for our fine manufacturers of Kentucky Bourbon or Tennessee Mash? How about the producers of gin and vodka, let alone the California wine interests? Why should Alaskan fishermen get a tax break when Washington State fishermen who fish in the same waters do not similarly benefit? Should not cotton-producing companies have the same tax break as wool-producing companies? How can a tax break for manufacturers of car-racing tracks <em>ever </em>be in the <em>general </em>interests of the United States?<br /></p><p> Governor Palin's running mate, who purportedly champions the crusade against pork spending, voted in favor of the pork-laden Bail Out Bill. So did his opponent. Both of these self-proclaimed "agents of change" are, therefore, deceptive at best. These presidential candidates and Senator Biden are members of the Washington elite about which people are angry according to Gov. Palin. Senators McCain, Obama, and Biden have demonstrated through their Bail Out Bill vote and their other votes on spending bills that they will continue to favor special interests rather than the general welfare of the nation. Their actions as President, therefore, will continue to threaten the legitimacy of the federal government. Congress, with its justly deserved approval rating of nine percent, will be gleeful accomplices. God help us all.<span style="font-family:Georgia;"><br /><br /> </span></p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-11480187943940571122008-06-29T10:59:00.001-05:002009-11-07T23:17:19.947-05:00Our Biggest Air Polluter<div style="text-align: left;">This summer day started off like most others. I got up, looked outside the window and wondered when I had last cleaned that window. Letting the cat outdoors reminded me that I had not been derelict in my window washing duty; the air washing over me from the open door smelled like a neighbor's house on the next block was being consumed by fire. Later that morning, I observed from my home office's hazy front window a couple neighbors walking their dogs while wearing what appeared to be surgical masks. I felt sorry for the mask-deprived dogs.</div><span xmlns=""><p> I was born and raised in Chicago and practiced law there for over 25 years. I lived in a community of about 6 million souls driving millions of cars on endless miles of roads. These cars were accompanied on the roads by buses that, as they accelerated, spewed clearly visible black smoke which you avoided by taking a deep breath and walking quickly across the street. Sometimes in July or August, a high pressure system would invade and occupy the area, causing a stillness in the air and a rise in the pollution index. In all my thousands of days in urban Chicago, and during my trips to places like Los Angeles, I have never experienced the continuing daily level of air pollution which plagues Hampton Roads this summer.<br /></p><p>Unlike Chicago or nearby Gary, Indiana, Hampton Roads does not have steel plants with operating smoke stacks or other heavy manufacturing factories which provide good jobs for a hard working middle class. In fact, we lost one of those plants just last year. Rather, we enjoy the bounty of God's creation with our gorgeous Atlantic beaches and the Chesapeake Bay, and the deep harbors on the Elizabeth and James Rivers which allow massive ships to rest safely from their international duties. These natural resources, however, are not in their original state. Rather, earlier generations of Hampton Roads residents improved these ocean fronts and rivers to allow their present use, and these are now actively maintained by us as demonstrated by periodic dredging and beach restoration. This continuing maintenance is necessary to preserve these natural resources on which the tourism of our economy rests. This tourism is clearly threatened by the continuing air pollution we are now enduring (how many tourists will come back next year when they spent most of this year's vacation to Virginia Beach indoors to avoid the smoke?).<br /></p><p>We in Virginia are not alone in suffering from smoke inhalation. Fox News <a href="http://www.kcba.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=2920f9f4-be56-420b-bfe9-e0d731325c8b">reported</a> that the good citizens of Northern California are enduring the effects of 1000 wildfires which have caused the local Air Pollution District to advise everyone in the affected areas to limit outdoor activity, stay indoors and avoid strenuous exercise. Because of the fires, air quality in some counties is approaching the level of "<a href="http://www.modbee.com/local/story/339452.html">very unhealthy</a>." This exposure to particle pollution caused by the fires can result in "<a href="http://www.modbee.com/local/story/339452.html">serious health problems</a> by aggravating lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, and increasing the risk of respiratory infections."<br /></p><p>Our current predicament and the travails of our Northern California counterparts remind us that the biggest source of air pollution in the world is Mother Nature. Yes, Mother Nature is not the benign grandmotherly type who coddles us infants and protects us from danger, but rather is often filled with rage and fury that needs taming by man rather than protection to commit more acts of violence.<br /></p><p>Our current national environmental policies have certainly contributed to this source of air pollution. It is no accident that most of the wildfires occur in the West, where huge tracts of land are owned by the federal and state governments. It is, moreover, no coincidence that the largest amount of air pollution I have ever experienced in my lifetime is the result of a fire burning for weeks now in the federally <a href="http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nwr/va_great.htm">owned</a> Great Dismal Swamp (during my days in Chicago, I foolishly thought that swamps were filled with water and would never burn). One wonders, of course, whether this failure by the federal government to protect its land (and the people downwind from the fires) is an omen for the quality of health care if it too is nationalized.<br /></p><p>Our misinformed national environmental policy has also contributed to the second plague confronting American consumers this summer, high energy prices. With environmental concerns blocking oil refinery and nuclear power development, energy demand will continue to exceed supply for the foreseeable future causing ever spiraling prices. Given the interaction between energy and all other production, inflation will rise quickly.<br /></p><p>Enough gloom and doom. Maybe I'll catch a bus to go to the only place where I can get exercise this summer, the suburban indoor mall. Yes, this product of cheap energy prices and land development appears to be the only place where I can walk without small particulate matter invading my lungs. Contrary to the claims by the environmentalists, maybe land development is not all that bad after all. Whoever heard of a fire burning for weeks on a golf course? </p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-37138599819049063142008-06-10T10:55:00.001-05:002009-11-07T23:17:41.918-05:00Change You Can Really Believe In<span xmlns=""><p style="text-align: left;">As I have watched speech after speech after speech during the last several months (which makes me wonder how the Brits could possibly elect a new leader in only a few weeks), my gaze has often fixed on the sign which appears on the podium and among the dozens of supporters strategically placed behind Senator Obama. Are they, like me, also thinking about change to a smaller and much less expensive government? Are they too thinking about a change for more liberty which necessarily accompanies more individual responsibility? Do they also think about changing the stranglehold of the educational monopoly which stifles our best and brightest students?</p><p>Since I suspect that "change" to the Democrats attracted to Senator Obama may be something different than the change I perceive necessary for our country, I (well, not actually me, but rather one of my bright students) did some research on what that omnipresent Obama campaign slogan may mean. We compared the U.S. to the countries the Democrats envy (Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden) to see which areas the Democrats may want to change. One of these areas may be the graduation rate for college students. According to a popular reference book, our college graduation rate of 81% is exceeded only by Canada's 91%. However, when Canada's rate is combined with the graduation rates in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden, the combined rate falls to 54%. This makes the U.S. graduation rate 50% higher than the other industrialized nations which the Democrats envy. Is this one of the changes they want to see, a less educated electorate?<br /></p><p>With the economy emerging as the top issue in this election, perhaps this is the area where the biggest change is necessary. According to the Heritage Foundation, the average productivity (measured as GDP per capita) of each American is $41,890. This level is much more than the average per capita productivity of Canadians, Brits, Germans, French and Swedes of $31,797. This means, of course, that the average American is 32% more productive than his northern neighbor or European counterpart (maybe it's attributable to "holidays"?). With this greater productivity, one might think that there is much more unemployment here, but actually the opposite is true. Even with the jump in employment statistics this month, the U.S.'s unemployment level of 5.5% is much lower than Sweden's 6.2%, Canada's 6.8%, France's 9.5%, and Germany's 11.7% (combined with Great Britain's 4.7%, the average of the "envies" is 7.8%, or 41% higher than the U.S. unemployment rate).<br /></p><p>With food and gas prices rapidly on the rise, maybe change for the Democrats means lower taxes so people will have more disposable income to pay for increased prices. But alas, it appears that the models to which the Democrats aspire actually take much more money out of the wallets of their people than the government currently takes from ours. The U.S. tax rate (as a percentage of GDP) is 26.8%, which is much lower than Canada's 33.5%, Germany's 34.7%, Great Britain's 37.2%, France's 44%, and Sweden's 51%. The U.S.'s tax burden of 26.8% is almost one-third lower than the 40% of our northern neighbor and European counterparts. This means, of course, that our northern neighbor and European counterparts must pay for the same commodities we purchase, but with lower disposable income because of increased taxes.<br /></p><p>Maybe the change Democrats seek with their increased taxes is a bigger government to give audacious hope to those rural Pennsylvanians desperately grasping onto their guns and Bibles. This change may make us a much less religious people, bringing us closer to the secular norm of our counterparts (82% of Americans consider themselves to be "a religious people," compared to 69% of Canadians, 55% of British, 48% of French, 54% of Germans, and 29% of Swedes). Yet, as stated recently by Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks whose research led to his book <em>Gross National Happiness</em>: "Faith is an incredible predictor – and cause – of happiness. Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier than secularists, on average. In 2004, 43 percent of those who attended a house of worship at least once a week said they were 'very happy' with their lives, versus 23% of those who attended seldom or never." (It appears, therefore, than those rural Pennsylvanians clinging to their Bibles at least have a smile on their face!).<br /></p><p>Change for Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats may, therefore, mean a less educated and less productive America paying more in taxes (and therefore having less for rising food and fuel prices) and taking more anti-depressants. If this is the change they seek, I respond simply: No thanks!<br /></p></span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-22668020358130307352007-04-11T21:05:00.000-05:002007-04-11T21:06:34.544-05:00Why Are There No Christian Suicide Bombers?<p class="style6" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt;"> The Muslim suicide bomber who struck an Iraqi elementary school this week reminded me of the Muslim bomber who literally crashed the wedding party at the Amman, Jordan Radisson Hotel last year. </p> <p class="style6" style="text-align: justify;">Both instances struck fear in every person with hope of life and love of children. Weddings are, after all, a celebration of life; a time when grandparents, immediate and extended family, and friends witness a man and woman exchanging pledges of support and fidelity. These pledges, which form a new entity, a new family, also provide the foundation upon which to build a new home for future children. Choosing to destroy a wedding party rather than a business meeting is, therefore, a particularly heinous act.<br /> <br />Car bombings and suicidal attacks are now a daily staple of our news. Rarely will a news cycle end without reference to another attack on civilians in Baghdad. Yet we never hear of a Christian suicide bomber, either here or abroad. Do Christians not love the Lord God Jehovah as much as the Muslim suicide bombers love Allah? Do Christians lack the devotion or courage necessary to take their lives in pursuit of a greater cause? To the secularists who think Christian crusaders and Muslim jihadists are cut from the same cloth, is there a material difference between the two?</p> <p class="style6">The answer, of course, is yes. A Christian kamikaze would truly be a “man bites dog” story. One reason for this truly remarkable difference in religions is their differing concepts of God. To the Muslims, Allah is one, and is powerful, just, and righteous. Although God to Christians has similar attributes, Christians believe there are three Persons in the Godhead – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. </p><p class="style6">This difference is significant because Christians believe that even before Creation, God was relational. God the Father loved His Son, who in turn loved His Father and the Holy Spirit. The Three Persons in the Godhead similarly communicated, empathized and were self-giving before Creation. All of these attributes of personality can only be expressed within a relationship, and to Allah, there is no relationship. </p><p class="style6" style="margin-top: 0pt;">Nancy Pearcey, in her book "Total Truth" notes that Christians pray to God as a personal being: They pour their hearts out to Him, as David did, and argue with Him, as Job did. Young Christians learn to sing “What a Friend We Have in Jesus,” and learn how God walked on earth in the form of a human 2000 years ago. Christians believe that a personal Being will respond in a personal way through impromptu supplication and spontaneous prayer. </p><p class="style6">Muslim worship, in contrast, is very ritualistic. Five times each day, wherever they may be, practicing Muslims turn toward Mecca in worship. Moving through the postures of standing, kneeling, prostrating, sitting, and reciting from the Qur’an, they passionately demonstrate their total submission to the will of Allah. Allah demands obedience from Muslims. Singing “What a Friend We Have in Allah” would be blasphemy. </p><p class="style6" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">The difference between Allah, who demands obedience, and God, who gives love, is stark. To some Muslims, Allah demands the sacrifice of their sons. To Christians, God gave His Son as a sacrifice for us. That’s a world of difference.</p>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-43056349747515035872007-04-11T21:04:00.000-05:002007-04-11T21:05:12.837-05:00It's not a Sin to Talk about Sin<p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> Politically incorrect speech apparently does not repulse Florida’s Republican voters. Katherine Harris was chosen as the party’s candidate in spite of (or perhaps because of) her use of a word many (if not most) Americans understand, but one that is particularly offensive to some </span> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> —</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> the “s - -“ word.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> In an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness, U.S. Rep. Harris described herself as a Christian and a supporter of mainstream Republican issues such as protecting marriage (she supports both the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment) and the unborn (since “life begins at conception”). Neither of these positions drew comments from either her primary opponents or the press.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> What drew attention were Harris’ comments to the Witness that “if you are not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> In reaction to this statement, one of Harris’ now defeated primary opponents urged Harris to drop out of the race and Congress because her comments were “warped, twisted, and disgraceful.” The press cited Jews, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and other Christians who claimed that Harris’ statement sought to exclude holders of other faiths from office, since Harris’ statement implied that non-Christians were less suited to govern than Christians.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> Harris’ comments were, of course, directed to a Christian audience (the Florida State Baptist Convention), and she used culturally sensitive language during the interview (few apart from evangelicals would understand the importance of Harris studying in L’Abri under Francis Schaeffer). Moreover, the overriding purpose in the interview was to encourage Christians to participate in the electoral process and vote for candidates who shared their worldview.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> The worldview of a politician is vital for a voter to understand. Worldview consists of the principles upon which the aspiring public official guides his or her actions and reactions. Worldview, in other words, is the philosophy that underlies the office seeker’s thought and guides his or her opinions, and therefore decisions, on public policy issues. It is the essence, the bedrock layer, of a person’s views on the major issues of life, and therefore of the world. It is an honest predictor of future decisions, assuming the politician holds firmly to his or her worldview.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> The strength or weakness of a voter’s support for the candidate will depend in large part on the candidate’s worldview. In my home state of Illinois, the Republican gubernatorial candidate does not follow Harris’ position on when life begins, and the candidate advocates expansion of gambling into Chicago. These positions signal to me that the Republican candidate disagrees with my view that God made humans in God’s image, and that money is best made by work or return on invested capital rather than by chance. Because my worldview differs from the Republican candidate’s, my enthusiasm for the candidate is soft (I would not campaign door-to-door for her as I have for most Illinois Republican candidates). In fact, I might not vote for any Illinois gubernatorial candidate on Nov. 7.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> Katherine Harris’s call for Florida Baptists to elect “tried and true” Christians is a plea for Baptists to discern the worldview of the candidates, and then vote accordingly. Her urging of Baptists to refrain from voting for candidates who will “legislate sin” is a call for orthodox Christians to elect people with a biblical worldview who will adhere to the biblical precepts of dignity for all humans, ordered liberty, individual responsibility, and limited government with dispersed powers.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> Not being part of the Christian evangelical culture, Harris’ opponents (both in the primary and the media) missed these meanings. The evangelical Christian voters apparently did not.</span></p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> As for me, maybe I will be going door-to-door in a warmer climate this November.</span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-37757848349660074102007-04-11T21:03:00.000-05:002007-04-11T21:04:17.492-05:00Misinterpreting Kelo<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">"The takeover of one person's property to give it to another person for [economic purposes] is just plain wrong. Economic development should never be considered a public use." (Rep. Thelma Drake, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, July 1, 2005, p. B11.)<br /> <br /> Mrs. Drake penned these words when commenting on the case of Kelo v. New London, in which the Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut town's power to condemn private property for economic development. Mrs. Drake forcefully drew the line between a city's proper use of condemnation power (for a school, road, or other "public use"), and a city's improper use of this power (for economic development or another "public purpose," which the Supreme Court has now permitted). <br /> <br /> Mrs. Drake claimed to oppose developers who wanted cities to condemn private property for economic development, and warned that "no homeowner is safe from local government seeking to boost revenues in city coffers." It is, therefore, more than a little ironic that the biggest land developer in our nation -- the federal government -- is forcing our local government to condemn private property for solely economic purposes.<br /> <br /> Readers of our local newspapers have no doubt as to the motivation of Virginia Beach's city council in considering a request for authority to condemn local private property. The Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission has demanded that Virginia Beach condemn and buy all incompatible buildings in the riskiest accident-potential zones around Oceana. Failure to comply with these demands could result in the Navy moving its jet squadrons to another base. To prevent this departure, the council on December 20 will vote on a plan which would use condemnation as a last resort to buy land zoned for residential use in the accident?potential zone.<br /> <br /> The justification for this condemnation authority is solely economic. Virginia Beach will not use the condemned land for schools or roads ("public use"). Rather, this land will simply lie fallow, and will only be used to slow down a crashing pilot. The real reason for the condemnation authority is to keep Virginia Beach's largest employer from relocating.<br /> <br /> One could argue that the condemned land would be put to a public use, this being national defense. One could argue that the Navy needs skilled pilots, and these skills can only be retained or enhanced by training, which requires flying, which may lead to crashes. I agree, which leads to my proposed solution.<br /> <br /> Although Virginia Beach would condemn the property for a public purpose (continued revenues, something denounced by Mrs. Drake), the federal government would condemn the property for a public use (training of its Navy fighters). Since national defense is a legitimate reason to condemn property, the federal government, and not Virginia Beach, should condemn the property it deems necessary for national defense. Although this will shift the financial burden from Virginia Beach to Washington, where it belongs, I can assure you that the federal government spends money on far less essential matters. Besides, a projected $268 million is "pocket change" for a government that has increased federal spending by 30 percent in the last four years.</span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29964072.post-10158208971225149512007-04-11T21:01:00.000-05:002007-04-11T21:03:11.636-05:00How does a Conservative Judge Look?<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> What distinguishes a conservative judge from a liberal judge? What positions on the law are conservatives looking for in judges nominated by the president? Here are some of them:<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for separation of powers</b>. The Founding Fathers made Congress by far the most powerful branch of government, and intended the Supreme Court to be weak in comparison. Members of Congress, of course, are elected by the people, and directly accountable to them. Federal judges, by contrast, are given life-time appointments, are very rarely removed from office, and therefore are not accountable to the people. When Congress makes laws we do not like, we can remove the objectionable members at the next election; we cannot do so to renegade Supreme Court justices who legislate from the bench. A conservative judge does not impose his will over the will of a popularly elected official.<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for community vs. rights</b>. We live in a community called the United States, and our laws reflect how we should live in this community. A focus on rights divides the community into separate individuals. Although rights (like the due process rights of criminals) must be respected, they must also be balanced against the needs of the community.<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for tradition</b>. Conservatives generally respect history and tradition, the unique elements of our past that set us Americans apart as a people. Conservative judges, similarly, respect the rule of law and the traditions of the American people. A conservative judge, therefore, will differ from a liberal judge on the merits of a case decided last month by the U.S. Supreme Court which found unconstitutional a display of the Ten Commandments, which was one of 11 equally framed displays (the Bill of Rights, the Magna Charta, and the Declaration of Independence were others).<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for the U.S. Constitution as written and originally interpreted.</b> Coupled with a respect for tradition, history, and separation of powers, conservative judges respect the intent of the Founding Fathers, who set up a national government with limited powers and a procedure to expand those powers as society changed. Conservatives believe that if the Constitution must be changed to reflect societal change, the proper way to do it is not by an "edict" issued by five members of a Supreme Court unaccountable to the people, but by a supermajority of Congress and then ratification by the supermajority of state legislatures, all of whom are accountable to the people. The Founders wanted a near consensus from both state and federal elected officials before the Constitution could be changed, <b> not </b>a 5-4 decision by judges unaccountable to the people.<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for federalism.</b> Conservatives prefer state and local government over the national government, on the premise that different communities have different problems (roads in one community, and crime in another, for example). Similarly, conservative judges are more deferential to state legislators, and more willing to rule unconstitutional federal legislation which imposes additional restrictions on the states.<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for national vs. international law.</b> Consistent with a respect for community and tradition, conservatives have greater respect for the precedents of the United States than of foreign lands, since foreigners have different perspectives and traditions than we do.<br /> <br /> <b>Respect for ordered liberty vs. equality.</b> Conservatives recognize that individuals have different talents and ambitions, and that the greatest engine for a successful nation is liberty. Conservatives also recognize that to achieve equality, force of some kind is necessary (typically government redistributing wealth). Equality is achieved, in part, through a loss of liberty. Conservatives, however, do not value liberty which permits licentiousness, but rather an ordered liberty which permits freedom in the context of community values. Conservative judges respect these values founded on tradition and history, and will respect them when challenged by claims of individual rights.<br /> <br /> For conservatives, the penultimate question to ask every candidate for judicial office is what the candidate will do to protect the ordered liberty for future generations.</span>Jim Davidshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08884120005272163129noreply@blogger.com0