The revolution is coming America!

[Gob]

Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS Posted 07/30/2010 06:30 PM ET

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.

The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."

A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.

• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... 542171&p=2

[dales]

send lawyers, guns and money...

the sh-t has hit the fan...

[loCAtek]

...and he's Black, hide your wimmin!

[Big RR]

I think the pioints raised in the post are pure BS, but I'm more than happy to trim the power of the presidency; it places far too much power in the hands of one (or a few) people and IMHO that's always a recipe for trouble. And the trimming might even force congress to stand up and do its job instead of just bickering and finger pointing.

[Sue U]

And the trimming might even force congress to stand up and do its job instead of just bickering and finger pointing.

I thought that was their job?

[Big RR]

So do they.

[Lord Jim]

Since WW II, the history of the American government has been the steady, relentless transfer of power from the the legislative to the executive...

The members of Congress have been active and willing participants in this process. They're perfectly happy with it; the less they have control over, the less they have to take responsibility for, and they are delighted to take responsibility for as little as possible...it's the easiest way to get re-elected....

The Congress is much happier setting up regulatory agencies and then letting the agencies take the heat for the actual rules, rather than taking responsibility for the rules themselves, to give just one example of the way this transfer of power has worked.

[Gob]

Do you have "Qango's" over there or an equivalent?

Quango or qango is an acronym (variously spelt out as quasi non-governmental organisation, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation, and quasi-autonomous national government organisation) used notably in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and elsewhere to label colloquially an organisation to which government has devolved power. In the United Kingdom the official term is "non-departmental public body" or NDPB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qango

[Sue U]

The Congress is much happier setting up regulatory agencies and then letting the agencies take the heat for the actual rules, rather than taking responsibility for the rules themselves, to give just one example of the way this transfer of power has worked.

That is a gross oversimplification. Congress passes the statutes that regulatory agencies are supposed to administer. The agencies, with presumptive expertise in their respective fields, promulgate rules to implement the statutes enacted by Congress. I don't think it's a particularly great idea to require those who construct the broad-stroke legislative policy to also draft the administrative minutiae required to make the programs work. Moreover, that would raise a whole constitutional separation-of-powers issue between the legislative and executive functions.

Do you have "Qango's" over there or an equivalent?

Not that I can think of on any significant scale. Probably the closest comparable thing we have is the National Council on the Arts and National Council on the Humanities, which advise the repsective National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities on grant/funding decisions.

[Gob]

So the US govt has not had a record of devolving power to semi autonomous bodies ( apart from the States).

We're actually moving away from that idea in the UK, as they have not proved that useful.

[Andrew D]

The Congress is much happier setting up regulatory agencies and then letting the agencies take the heat for the actual rules, rather than taking responsibility for the rules themselves, to give just one example of the way this transfer of power has worked.

That is a gross oversimplification. Congress passes the statutes that regulatory agencies are supposed to administer. The agencies, with presumptive expertise in their respective fields, promulgate rules to implement the statutes enacted by Congress. I don't think it's a particularly great idea to require those who construct the broad-stroke legislative policy to also draft the administrative minutiae required to make the programs work. Moreover, that would raise a whole constitutional separation-of-powers issue between the legislative and executive functions.

I disagree with the last sentence. I see no constitutional difficulty in Congress's enacting statutes as minutely detailed as it pleases.

If anything, it is Congress's delegation of power to the executive -- which is, after all, what the delegation of rule-making power is: Congress's delegation of its own power to the executive branch -- which presents a constitutional difficulty. (But the Supreme Court has generally upheld such delegations.)

[Big RR]

I agree with andrew. Add to that all the governing done by executive orders, and you see how the power of the legislative branch continues to go to the executive. I honestly think Congress should take some of this back; all that power in the hands of a single (or a few) individual(s) is very dangerous. For example, when was the last time a US serviceman/woman was killed in a war formally declared by Congress? I think WW2; oh the exectutive might seek the advice of Congress (like W did, e.g.), but Congress ordinarily just lets the executive commit US troops and lives wherever and whenever he chooses--something it ought not to be doing IMHO.

[Lord Jim]

For example, when was the last time a US serviceman/woman was killed in a war formally declared by Congress?

Well Big RR, the Supreme Court has had no problem with this....

The fact remains that Congress always has the power to end any military action it doesn't approve of...

All they have to do is cut off the money....

[Long Run]

Do you have "Qango's" over there or an equivalent?

You mean besides this bbs?

[Big RR]

For example, when was the last time a US serviceman/woman was killed in a war formally declared by Congress?

Well Big RR, the Supreme Court has had no problem with this....

The fact remains that Congress always has the power to end any military action it doesn't approve of...

All they have to do is cut off the money....

You're right Jim; but that's not my point. Congress ceding authority to the executive (and vice versa) may well be within the bounds of the Constitution (it's been a long time since I looked at the SC decisions, so I'll refrain from comment on them), but I think we still have decide if is is wise to do so. And IMHO for the legislature to throw up its hands and cede its power to the executive, placing it in the hands of a single person (or very few people) is not only unwise but dangerous.

[Lord Jim]

IMHO for the legislature to throw up its hands and cede its power to the executive, placing it in the hands of a single person (or very few people) is not only unwise but dangerous.

As a general principle, It is certainly potentially dangerous...

But as far as the issue of committing US forces into a conflict, my understanding is that the SC has been fairly clear and consistent on this....

Ever since at least Vietnam, every single time a President has committed US forces to a conflict, somebody has brought suit claiming that it was "an illegal war" and every single time they have failed....

If memory serves me correctly, before the commencement of hostilities in the Iraq war, a group of members of Congress went to court to try to prevent Bush from acting, and the case was tossed out on the grounds that they had no standing to bring suit. I believe the ruling was basically that only Congress as a "body" would have standing, and Congress as a body did not choose to do so.

Congress holds the power of the purse; I can think of one time when it actually exercised this power; at the end of the Vietnam war, when it refused to appropriate the funds Gerald Ford requested to provide material and air support to the South Vietnamese...(not a glorious chapter in our history in my opinion)

But that's what it boils down to....

If Congress wants to prevent a President from taking military action, or wants to force a President to cease a military action, it has to "man up" and vote to cut off the funds. (In the case of an existing military operation, it has to vote to cut off the funds for anything other than an orderly withdrawal; obviously to do otherwise would be recklessly irresponsible with the lives of our troops)

But when some ying yang, be they a left wing pacifist or a right wing "Constitutional Conservative" runs around trying to claim that if we are conducting military operations without a "declaration of war" that the operation is "illegal" they are spouting nonsense.

[Big RR]

Point taken Jim re the "power of the purse", and I agree. however, IMHO (and apparently not that of the USSC), I think Congress (and only Congress) was given the Constitutional power to decalre war for the very reason that if a majority of the Congress cannot agree to declare war, the exectuive should have no power to commit American troops to an effort where they may (and probably will) lose their lives. Giving this power over to the executive is unwise IMHO, but that's pretty much what has been done.