From a speech before the US House of Representatives  September 7, 2006

Politicians throughout history have tried to solve every problem conceivable to man, always failing to recognize that many of the problems we face result from previous so-called political solutions. Government cannot be the answer to every human ill. Continuing to view more government as the solution to problems will only make matters worse.

Not too long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is a majority of American citizens expect the federal government to provide for every need, without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem solvers, since nobody asks first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault.

At home I’m frequently asked about my frustration with Congress, since so many reform proposals go unheeded. I jokingly reply, “No, I’m never frustrated, because I have such low expectations.” But the American people have higher expectations, and without forthcoming solutions, are beyond frustrated with their government.

If solutions to America’s problems won’t be found in the frequent clamor for more government, it’s still up to Congress to explain how our problems develop – and how solutions can be found in an atmosphere of liberty, private property, and a free market order. It’s up to us to demand radical change from our failed policy of foreign military interventionism. Robotic responses to the clichés of big government intervention in our lives are unbecoming to members who were elected to offer ideas and solutions. We must challenge the status quo of our economic and political system.

Many things have contributed to the mess we’re in. Bureaucratic management can never compete with the free market in solving problems. Central economic planning doesn’t work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly, it’s unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through higher taxes won’t solve anything.

Nothing will change in Washington until it’s recognized that the ultimate driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding power. And money from special interests drives the political process. Money and power are important only because the government wields power not granted by the Constitution. A limited, constitutional government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints, while expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state.

Even when it’s recognized that we’re traveling down the wrong path, the lack of political courage and the desire for reelection results in ongoing support for the pork-barrel system that serves special interests. A safe middle ground, a don’t-rock-the-boat attitude, too often is rewarded in Washington, while meaningful solutions tend to offend those who are in charge of the gigantic PAC/lobbyist empire that calls the shots in Washington. Most members are rewarded by reelection for accommodating and knowing how to work the system.

Though there’s little difference between the two parties, the partisan fights are real. Instead of debates about philosophy, the partisan battles are about who will wield the gavels. True policy debates are rare; power struggles are real and ruthless. And yet we all know that power corrupts.

Both parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement policies. Unfortunately, neither party has much concern for civil liberties. Both parties are split over trade, with mixed debates between outright protectionists and those who endorse government-managed trade agreements that masquerade as “free trade.” It’s virtually impossible to find anyone who supports hands-off free trade, defended by the moral right of all citizens to spend their money as they see fit, without being subject any special interest.

The big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets can’t provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government’s forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don’t seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.

On top of this, the daily operation of Congress reflects the power of special interests, not the will of the people – regardless of which party is in power.

Critically important legislation comes up for votes late in the evening, leaving members little chance to read or study the bills. Key changes are buried in conference reports, often containing new legislation not even mentioned in either the House or Senate versions.

Conferences were meant to compromise two different positions in the House and Senate bills – not to slip in new material that had not been mentioned in either bill.

Congress spends hundreds of billions of dollars in “emergency” supplemental bills to avoid the budgetary rules meant to hold down the deficit. Wartime spending money is appropriated and attached to emergency relief funds, making it difficult for politicians to resist.

The principle of the pork barrel is alive and well, and it shows how huge appropriations are passed easily with supporters of the system getting their share for their district.

Huge omnibus spending bills, introduced at the end of the legislative year, are passed without scrutiny. No one individual knows exactly what is in the bill.

In the process, legitimate needs and constitutional responsibilities are frequently ignored. Respect for private property rights is ignored. Confidence in the free market is lost or misunderstood. Our tradition of self-reliance is mocked as archaic.

Lack of real choice in economic and personal decisions is commonplace. It seems that too often the only choice we’re given is between prohibitions or subsidies. Never is it said, “Let the people decide on things like stem cell research or alternative medical treatments.”

Nearly everyone endorses exorbitant taxation; the only debate is about who should pay—either tax the producers and the rich or tax the workers and the poor through inflation and outsourcing jobs.

Both politicians and the media place blame on everything except bad policy authored by Congress. Scapegoats are needed, since there’s so much blame to go around and so little understanding as to why we’re in such a mess.

In 1920s and 1930s Europe, as the financial system collapsed and inflation raged, it was commonplace to blame the Jews. Today in America the blame is spread out: Illegal immigrants, Muslims, big business (whether they get special deals from the government or not), price-gouging oil companies (regardless of the circumstances), and labor unions. Ignorance of economics and denial of the political power system that prevails in D.C. make it possible for Congress to shift blame.

Since we’re not on the verge of mending our ways, the problems will worsen and the blame games will get much more vicious. Shortchanging a large segment of our society surely will breed conflict that could get out of control. This is a good reason for us to cast aside politics as usual and start finding some reliable answers to our problems.

Politics as usual is aided by the complicity of the media. Economic ignorance, bleeding heart emotionalism, and populist passion pervade our major networks and cable channels. This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well-coordinated by the media/government/military/industrial complex. This collusion is worse than when state – owned media do the same thing. In countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear. In the United States the media are considered free and independent, thus the propaganda is accepted with less questioning.

One of the major reasons we’ve drifted from the Founders’ vision of liberty in the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom into two parts. Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and economic transactions, it has come to be thought of as two different concepts. Some in Congress now protect economic liberty and market choices, but ignore personal liberty and private choices. Others defend personal liberty, but concede the realm of property and economic transactions to government control.

There should be no distinction between commercial speech and political speech. With no consistent moral defense of true liberty, the continued erosion of personal and property rights is inevitable. This careless disregard for liberty, our traditions, and the Constitution have brought us disaster, with a foreign policy of military interventionism supported by the leadership of both parties. Hopefully, some day this will be radically changed.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Medical care is not a free good found in nature. Of course, no one really thinks it is. But that doesn’t keep most people from wanting to pretend otherwise, and the current institutional setting makes that possible. After a while, one forgets one is pretending. Yet medical care goes on being a collection of produced goods and services — subject to the laws of supply and demand, and requiring resources and labor that come with opportunity costs. Therein lies the problem.

Medical insurance has come to mean getting something for free. The receiver of a service need not ask how it is financed. It’s just taken care of. (Passive voice intentional.) Yes, somebody gets paid, and the money comes from somewhere. That’s okay, as long as it doesn’t come from the covered party. (What would be the point of having insurance?) Don’t bother us with such matters.

Let us believe it’s free. Let the insurer figure out the rest. But he’d better keep that coverage going. And don’t hassle us by not paying all bills eagerly and unquestioningly. That’s what he’s there for. Just reassure us that whatever services we consume will be taken care of. We don’t want to know the details. What’s that? The government is promising to cap our out-of-pocket expenses, require coverage for preexisting illness and free preventative care, and extend the same deal to absolutely everyone? And this will have no negative consequences whatever, such as limits on what we can buy or enlargement of the budget deficit or higher taxes for the middle class — but it will actually save money? Oh thank you, government!

This irresponsible mindset, which is similar to a not-very-inquisitive child’s, is what at least two generations of government intervention in health care — and the welfare state in general — have produced in the American people. Thus the welfare state retards moral and intellectual development. We expect the State — our surrogate parent — to make it all right. The demagogues we call politicians are happy to feed this attitude because it provides occasions for the expansion and exercise of raw power while seeming, like Santa Claus, to give away free goods. Of such things long political careers are made.

Something for Nothing

The healthcare “reform” juggernaut seems to be on an irresistible course. The 1,990-page (!) bill (pdf) released by the House leadership yesterday is just the latest variation on the corrupt something-for-nothing theme. The details obscure the big picture. A modest public option instead of a robust public option? Blah blah blah blah blah. The government-run insurance “alternative” was always more signal than substance.

Why do you need a government “competitor” if the government will be dictating every detail of the private insurance business under any circumstances? What motivates the public option, I submit, is sheer hatred of private, for-profit business in the medical industry. Of course, we don’t have purely private, for-profit insurance companies — every state government runs a regulated, protectionist insurance cartel. (That’s why the feds exempted the insurance industry from antitrust; it was a favor to the state regulators.)

But the public-option advocates would oppose truly free-market insurance companies. Their true preference is a government monopoly — which is why it is so funny to hear them praise “choice and competition.” That’s the last thing they want, but they know that the American people won’t accept their single-payer scheme. Anyone who really wanted choice and competition would at least support legalizing interstate insurance sales. The silence about that is deafening.

Most people get their insurance through their employer, so they won’t have the option of the public option anyway. One of the biggest sources of trouble in the healthcare system is employer-purchased insurance — it cuts the consumer out of decision-making. Yet this bill, and all the others, strengthen that perverse system. Some reform. Despite the squawking, the insurance companies love the idea of forcing people to buy their products. The corporate state thrives.

Like an uninquisitive child, most people seem willing to believe politicians when they promise to subsidize and compel the use of medical “insurance” while reducing prices without controlling choices. And while they’re at it, they’ll cut the budget deficit and boost economic growth. One shouldn’t have to be an economist to smell a scam. Exactly how is that supposed to work? They’ll get the money out of Medicare — without degrading the service — and they’ll tax millionaires, while fining employers who don’t provide insurance and those of us who don’t buy it. Since the American people aren’t rolling on the floor laughing their you-know-whats off, I can only conclude that the government’s schools have so dumbed them down that they have no trouble swallowing this patent nonsense.

A final word about the nearly 2,000-page bill. Others have said it, but it needs to be repeated. No one will be able to understand all the implications and consequences of a government attempt to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. Heck, few will read — and grasp– the bill in its entirety. (You also have to read all the statutes that are amended by the bill.) Enacting laws that no one comprehends, and that turn over yet-to-be defined powers to others, wouldn’t seem to satisfy the criteria of self-government, the consent of the governed, the rule of law, or any of the other political myths we live by.

I don’t how any theory of political obligation rooted in popular sovereignty that could regard this bill as morally binding when it becomes “law.” The process mocks the philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It insults the intelligence. It disgraces everything decent about this country.

Before this week, I had never heard Senator Charles Grassley speak – on anything. In the last few days, though, I’ve been sent a number of emails about him being a “strong 10th Amendment supporter.” Skeptical of any Senator in DC actually supporting the Constitution in a meaningful way, I browsed around YouTube and found what must’ve incited the onslaught of emails about him. It was a clip called “Sen. Grassley: Health Overhaul Violates 10th Amendment.”

Title: Good.

Before the 1:30 mark, he had this to say:

“This is the first time in the 222 year history of our country that we have forced you as a constituent – any of our constituents – to buy a product…..And if you don’t buy it, IRS is gonna tax a family $1500.”

Interesting comment. Ok, I’m listening.

He’s then asked a question: “Is this Constitutional – forcing them to buy it and punishing them through the IRS if they don’t?”

His response

“Uh…I’m not a lawyer …”

Alert: Politician Code Word.

Whenever you hear a politician talk about the Constitutionality of something by saying “I’m not a lawyer,” what they’re really saying is “I’m weak and won’t take a stand on this.”

That’s pretty much what the rest of his response was – “blah blah blah, some lawyers have said it might be unconstitutional, blah blah blah”

So, I started to wonder a bit – what out there, does Chuck Grassley think is a “violation of the 10th Amendment.”

He sure doesn’t think that the largest-ever expansions of government-run health care since Medicare and Medicaid was a violation – in 2003 he and his republican buddies voted for both SCHIP and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. The latter is now projected to cost Americans over a trillion dollars.

I guess he likes government health care when a Republican is in charge.

And just a day later, he comes out and tells us that we need “national” laws for medical marijuana.

Where in the Constitution is that authority, Chuck?

He also voted in favor of the Patriot Act – and its renewal in 2006. In favor of No Child Left Behind and Real ID.

If I have to explain the problem with those, you’re on the wrong website.

The moral of the story? Almost no one in DC has any real respect for the 10th Amendment or the Constitution as a whole. If they say something about it that appears to be right – be wary – they’re probably just paying it lip service.

Grassley is no 10th Amendment supporter – he’s little more than a thug in a suit.

2009 has seen the greatest proliferation in American government command and control in over half a century, together with its corresponding constriction in liberty. Power is increasingly being centralized in the federal government—at the expense of individuals and their voluntary associations — with the creation of multi-billion or trillion dollar new programs, massive bureaucracies and breathtaking income redistribution nowhere authorized in the Constitution.

While the current engorgement of our federal government already implemented or being proposed is unprecedented, it follows much the same path as earlier episodes, such as FDR’s New Deal. That is why there is wisdom to be found from those who understood and opposed that accumulation of social power in the hands of the government. Perhaps no one offers us more wisdom in this regard than Felix Morley, in his The Power in the People (1949).

Morley was a Rhodes Scholar, a Guggenheim Fellow, a Ph.D. from the Brookings Institution, a Pulitzer Prize winning editor of the Washington Post, President of Haverford College, and founder of Human Events, who has a journalism award named for him. According to James Person, he was “respected for his acumen and fairness by his peers across the political spectrum,” and reviewer Edith Hamilton termed The Power in the People “a remarkable book, nobly written and profoundly thought out.”

Morley’s key distinction The Power in the People was between self-government and coercive government. As Leonard Liggio summarized it,

Morley based his distinction between Society and State on the origins of the words. Society is derived from the Latin socius, a companion. Society and association are rooted in the voluntarism of companionship…Morley continues on to the word State, which is rooted in involuntary or forced association. He sees the absence of free choice and free contract as the basis of the word status, from which state is derived.

When a new edition of The Power in the People was produced in 1972, 23 years after its first publication, it was reprinted without change. A dozen years later still, Sydney Mayers concluded, “Nor is any change required currently.” Consider how much the same is true today.

This Republic is grounded on the belief that the individual can govern himself.

[A] political system designed to encourage people to govern themselves is increasingly distorted in order to subject them to remote administrative dictation.

The founders certainly believed, and frequently asserted, that the primary purpose of government is to secure private property.
The Constitution of the United States sets specific limits to the power of government so that the latter may not repress the individual characteristic of liberty.

[W]e may awaken to find that a government established to secure the blessings of liberty has actually produced…tyranny. Indeed, that…outcome is wholly probable whenever democratic processes place representative government in the hands of men willing to exploit ignorance in order to further the centralization of power…

[I]t is impossible to read even the bare text of the Constitution at all carefully without realizing that the American Republic was specifically designed to safeguard individual enterprise against the state.

[C]oncentrated political power is, and continuously should be, suspect by those whom it subjects.

[A]ny system of government cherishing the individual should make allowance for many conflicting viewpoints and should not impede their voluntary adjustment. The only workable alternative to a governmental system that encourages agreement is one that in encourages repression. And the latter, no matter how fair its initial pretense, is in nature, and will therefore eventually become in action, a system of tyranny.

Self-government is the very heart and core of the American way of life … the dominant emphasis was on self-government rather than on imposed government; on the development of Society, not on the aggrandizement of the State.

[T]he real sources of American strength…[rest] on the belief that the individual is at least potentially important, and that he fulfills himself through voluntary co-operation in a free society. This belief implies an instinctive hostility to the State—an agency created to discipline society and with a consequent tendency to assume the direction of all social functions.

[T]he issue stands out clearly. Shall man be subject to the authoritarian State or shall he restrain State powers to the minimum necessary for an orderly Society?

[I]n America the individual, retaining sovereignty, intended to fulfill his destiny through a free Society, holding the State in leash.
Although the democratic ideal encourages individualism, the actual operation of a democratic system produces a centralization of power hostile to self-reliance.

[A]rbitrary power in a democracy may be just as great a menace to liberty as the outright tyranny of a dictatorship.

[T]he survival of the Republic is not endangered by weakness in the central government, but by popular pressure for its aggrandizement.

The State, in short, subjects people; whereas Society associates them voluntarily.

Man…is now exchanging membership in Society for servitude to the State.

[T]he development of the State has been that of constant aggrandizement. Necessarily, that aggrandizement has been…at the expense of Society and of the individuals who create Society…

Power it has, and force, and techniques to make its commands effective…But since the State has no conscience, and is primarily a continuing mechanism of material power, the human welfare side of State activity should blind no thoughtful person to its underlying menace.

Americans have…largely ceased to reflect upon the implications of the unconditional surrender of power to political government…wholly contrary to the principles of the Republic …

Power in the hands of the State is less inhibited morally and more destructive physically than in Society.

State power, no matter how well disguised by seductive words, is in the last analysis always coercive physical power…As we come to recognize that the State is the repository of coercive power, and by its nature works ceaselessly to enlarge that power, much that seems shameful and senseless in the world today becomes intelligible…

A person who maintains that the State should solve, by necessarily coercive methods, any problem that individuals are capable of solving voluntarily, is…the very opposite of a liberal. The essence of tyranny is reliance on external, as opposed to internal, compulsion.

[R]emember that true liberalism insists on protecting the individual from tyranny of every variety, and that tyrannies are almost always imposed…by democratic means.

As State controls become more plausible, more far-reaching and more effective, the tendency of democracy is to succumb to the demagogue becomes ever more pronounced.

The American tradition is of course completely opposed to authoritarian government … The American conviction is that the ‘Safety and Happiness’ of the governed takes precedence over every governmental prerogative and that deference is not necessarily owing to those temporarily in a position of political command.

Encroachment on the rights of others is not prevented by withdrawing the power to encroach from individual hands and vesting it in government bureaus.

The American theory is that every man has within him the potential to make a significant contribution of some kind to human welfare. Therefore every minority…must be protected against the ever-possible tyranny of mass opinion.

[E]xalting the State is steadily to augment its physical power at the expense of Society. The more that power can be concentrated, the more perfect the State becomes as an instrumentality of suppression in the hands of those who believe in suppression…

Only one form of government can nurture liberty, and that is personal self-government.

The distinguishing characteristic of American civilization is the subordination of centralized power in behalf of individual liberty.

The market does not become more humane under the direction of the amoral institution that we have seen the State to be.

To transfer power to the State…serves only to monopolize power in wholly irresponsible hands…

[T]he tendency of the American people to turn to political authority for the solution of their economic problems was tragic…because there is no solution…in this fancied remedy…once a people are lost in the recesses of this blind alley, they will learn that it is almost impossible to find a way out.

Enlargement of the area of State authority therefore does not enlarge, but definitely contracts, the condition of economic freedom…this false god over every form of social organism is enormous and devastating.

One should not require personal experience with ration cards and queues and bureaucratic bungling to appreciate the practical superiority of the free enterprise system over any form of State-directed economic planning.

[S]ocial legislation is a sign of retrogression, not progress. It should be obvious that there has been widespread individual failure if humanitarianism has to be enforced by disciplinary governmental action.

Social strength can be diminished by a constant centralization and enlargement of governmental functions, the great majority of which are unproductive and…weaken the economic basis by the cumulative effects of regulation and taxation.

[T]here are many Americans who attest their willingness to accept political dictatorship, if the State will only furnish them with periodic handouts and otherwise show continuous benevolence in the ordering of their lives.

The reformer…is usually disposed to believe that improvement can be imposed by government fiat…placing great confidence in the coercive power of the State.

[T]he one enduring political folly is to concentrate in the hands of ambitious men power that they do not have the restraint to exercise wisely.

Nothing that advances the power of the State over Society, thereby subjecting the individual to the State, can properly be called liberal.

[T]he most that any government can do is set people ‘at liberty.’ The State can stabilize the condition of freedom, and that is its sole excuse for being…men must develop their liberty from within. It cannot be doled out by government agencies.

60 years ago, Felix Morley could say that “The worth and validity of American political principles are now being aggressively challenged by the philosophy of government planning.” That challenge is vastly greater today.

According to Joseph Stromberg, “Felix Morley… understood the old republic, the constitution, peace, and free markets, as well as their opposites, empire, lawless rule, war and generalized statism.” That is the understanding Americans need to rediscover to defend our liberty.

And doing so by reading The Power in the People brings with it what Sydney Mayers called “an unusual privilege, the rare experience of enjoying brilliant literary style whilst absorbing education thanks to the author’s keen mind and dexterous pen.”

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

copyright 2009 Gary Galles

Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba’s health care system, “You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met.” W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, “Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. … But also — and this was the highest proof of his greatness — he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.” Walter Duranty called Stalin “the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man.” George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.

John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao’s China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that “the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action,” and that Yenan itself constituted “a brand new well integrated society, that has never been seen before anywhere.” Michel Oksenberg, President Carter’s China expert, complained that “America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values,” and urged us to “borrow ideas and solutions” from China.

Even Harvard’s late Professor John K. Fairbank, by no means the worst tyrant worshipper, believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, “Americans may find in China’s collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one’s neighbor that has a lesson for us all.” Keep in mind that estimates of the number of Chinese deaths during China’s Cultural Revolution range from 2 to 7 million people. Mao Tsetung was admired by many academics and leftists across our country. Just think back to the campus demonstrations of the ’60s and ’70s when campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao’s little red book, “Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung.” Forty years later some of these campus radicals are tenured professors and administrators at today’s universities and colleges, as well as schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.

The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii’s Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, “Death by Government.” Statistics are provided at his website. The Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and those in nations they captured. Between 1917 and 1987, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

Today’s leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there’s little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for “social justice.” It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today’s Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.

Few Americans have the stomach or ruthlessness to do what is necessary to make their governmental wishes come true. They are willing to abandon constitutional principles and rule of law so that the nation’s elite, who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, can have the tools to implement “social justice.”

Those tools are massive centralized government power.

It just turns out last century’s notables in acquiring powerful central government, in the name of social justice, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, but the struggle for social justice isn’t over yet, and other suitors of this dubious distinction are waiting in the wings.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Early in my development as a human being, there was the pledge of allegiance. There was the National Anthem and of course, the Stars and Stripes.

I grew up in Southern California and now that I have had a chance to deprogram myself (which has taken years) I have some questions- for one, where was the pledge to the California Republic? Where was my class on the California Constitution…or even just a mere mention of it in one of my other government classes at my government school?

The reality is that my generation was indoctrinated with a very subtle, but dangerous notion- that the Federal Government IS the United States.

There was no mention in my childhood of state sovereignty…not even the briefest mention of the 10th Amendment. Oh sure, I knew about something called the ‘Bill of Rights’ but all that I can remember being taught was that it was separate from the Constitution, with a sneaky inference that the first 10 amendments were somehow a lesser part of the framers’ vision.

One flag. One nation. One ruling body, Washington DC.

This is the situation we all face today as Americans who value the philosophy of our founding fathers. Despite being an absolute desecration of the founder’s concept of ‘United States’, the ‘Omnipotent Centralized State’ has become zeitgeist through our words, our patriotic displays and our teachings.

It’s a steep hill to climb, but this effect must be reversed if we are to keep our republic. Deprogramming the masses and awakening once again a pride in one’s state house is more cultural than legal, more art than science but it must be done. If the territory gained by the Tenth Movement is to stand we will have to find a way to ensure that future generations honor TWO flags in their classrooms, maybe even at ballgames- The Red White and Blue AND the flag of their state.

I have either been involved in or closely observed some level of government for almost ten years. In that time I have studied a series of local, county and state government entities, as well as an array of government public trusts.

I have spent a good deal of time listening to those groups argue about why they needed to continue receiving taxpayer largesse, need more taxes and fees, or want approval for new debt spending. I cannot recall one single time when a representative of any government group admitted to having too much money and suggested that the money be returned to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.

A naive person who did not maintain a healthy sense of skepticism would quickly adopt the point of view that almost all elements of government are terribly underfunded and much good would be accomplished with higher taxes and more debt spending.

Those who advance the notion of more government spending usually do so in a smooth and professional manner but every once in a while, a bureaucrat mistakenly reveals the true state of affairs. This was illustrated when I recently attended a meeting in which a group government officials listened to a very professional presentation by a representative of a government entity. The presentation communicated the need for money faced by the agency and was not unlike any number of similar presentations I have heard over the years.

Following his sales pitch, the presenter introduced to the group a high ranking official in his agency. Apparently unaware that a few state representatives where in the room, that official announced that he had been very busy lately because his agency was nearing the end of its fiscal year and his boss had apparently discovered a few extra hundred thousand dollars and had tasked him with quickly spending the money before the fiscal year expired. After all, the agency wouldn’t want elected officials to discover they had overfunded the agency, and certainly the agency did not want to run the risk of facing reduced funding.

To hear a high ranking official make this comment was shocking in and of itself, especially following the recently concluded sales pitch of his subordinate. However, what I found to be the most discouraging was the reaction of the audience. Instead of expressing shock or disgust at this obvious waste of taxpayer dollars, several of the government officials met the comments with applause and laughter.

Their reaction created the distinct impression in my mind that those who celebrated these comments support taking from the taxpayer even when it is unnecessary to do so. This speaks to the fact that they no longer consider their positions to be positions of trust in which their foremost duty is to guard the taxpayers’ money.

Incidents like this illustrate the importance of tax reduction and much greater transparency. To this end, I look forward to drafting and sponsoring an aggressive schedule of legislation during the upcoming session that both cuts spending and brings about greater transparency than ever before. The taxpayers must have the easy ability to see how, where and when the government bureaucrats are spending our money.

Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, represents House District 31, which encompasses all of Logan County and a portion of northern Edmond. Murphey also owns and operates WebTeks CMS. He may be reached via e-mail at jason.murphey@okhouse.gov.

After decades of broken promises, many Americans have realized that whichever party is in office, the more power held by federal officials, the less control the people have over their own lives, and the more arrogant and dangerous those far off federal officials will become.

The only way to keep the government accountable, to keep its size and power where they cannot be easily abused, is to keep government close to home.

Yet over the century and a half since Lincoln settled the Confederacy question, an ongoing and unrestrained power grab by the federal government has led to the assumption that its mandate is unlimited. State obsequiousness to central authority in exchange for federal tax dollars has helped fuel that delusion, and resulted in significant loss of individual freedom over the years; but the true scope of federal arrogance has been on display only since last fall.

That was when the executive branch via President Bush began nationalizing huge swaths of private industry despite an utter lack of constitutional authority to do so.

But even though more resources and power than ever are flowing into Washington, D.C., one day students of our history may look back on the early part of the Obama administration and see not a new authoritarian foundation, but rather the pinnacle of an unsustainably centralized power structure. Already, public attitudes toward the new president are shifting from cautious optimism about his professed faith in the American dream to incredulous horror at his continued and worsening abuse of federal power.

That’s because, contrary to popular belief, the American people are not fools. They love liberty and can clearly see the dead hand of government as it grasps further than ever into their lives and wallets. The last six months have exposed a vacuum in the political marketplace and rancorous town hall meetings over health care “reform” are just the beginning.

While members of Congress tell themselves that opposition to their statist agenda is motivated by ignorance or special interest cash, it is actually America’s Anti-Federalist heritage re-emerging in front of their eyes. Millions of Americans have grown so disillusioned by the tyrannical similarities between Republicans and Democrats in Congress (and in the presidency) that they are now raising serious questions about the fundamental virtues of federal versus state power.

And while proponents of state sovereignty may not be able to stop a president and his supermajority on health care or cap and trade, their movement is preparing for the start of a major upheaval in 2010.

And what’s coming won’t be your daddy’s Revolution.

Even now, the rumblings have begun. Look no further than the stands taken this past spring by Rick Perry in Texas and Mark Sanford in South Carolina over taxes and unfunded mandates tied to federal stimulus money. Or the sovereignty resolutions that have now passed in many states. These are not isolated coincidences.

During next year’s elections (and beyond) many candidates will argue that the time has come to stop subverting state interests to self-serving diktats of the federal government, or risk losing autonomy altogether.

And some of those candidates, mostly at the state level, will win. In the process, Anti-Federalism as an issue will regain its rightful prominence in our national political dialogue. Millions of Americans who currently feel shut out, disregarded, and unrepresented in national politics will demand their state representatives stop dreaming of an office on Capitol Hill and start bringing power and control back home where it belongs.

The key to success for this new generation of Anti-Federalists will be the countless small government groups that have sprouted like weeds all over the country in the past six months.

If they turn their formidable energy and principled fiscal conservatism to state politics, the pressure on those governments to reduce tax and regulatory burdens will be enormous. The representatives will have to respond, or risk being run out of office.

Eventually, to keep their jobs, they will fight for those same demands on behalf of their constituents at the national level; defending individual freedom against a power hungry federal oligarchy, just as the Constitution intended.

Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.

The government of the United States is in the midst of debating major new undertakings, ranging from health care to climate change to energy development to tax reform.  Yet far more fundamental is a basic but stealth shift in national priorities—in the form of a rapid and pervasive expansion of government power over the private sector of the economy.

Although no serious discussion is occurring in the nation about the desirability of shifting economic power from individual decision-makers to the national government, that shift is a basic characteristic of virtually every policy proposal being debated in the Congress.

Take tax policy.  A 131-page document (pdf) issued by the Treasury goes way beyond recommending the extension of some of the expiring Bush administration tax cuts.  For example, the fine print contains over a dozen ways of discouraging American firms from doing business and investing overseas.  Supposedly minor technical changes also would have a severe impact.

For example, eliminating LIFO (last in-first out) inventory accounting will raise business taxes over $60 billion in one decade.  The Treasury also wants to revive four corporate environmental taxes that were eliminated in 1969.  These four arbitrary taxes have no relation between the tax burden imposed on a company and the pollution that it generates.  This bears an uneasy resemblance to Willie Sutton, who robbed banks because that was where the money was. Inevitably a variety of technical tax provisions will increase the paperwork burden on business.  The penalties for failing to file information returns (such as Form 1099) promptly and accurately are raised in a very complicated fashion involving three tiers of penalties.

On the expenditure side, the typical stimulus project increases the power of government in private business decision-making.  The bailout of the automobile industry is really an inefficient method of financing union pension and health plans.  The stockholders are zapped and the bondholders poorly treated.  The taxpayers are left holding the bag, especially considering the restrictions on General Motors importing the really fuel-efficient cars they produce overseas.  Apparently, the new General Motors factory for building compact cars was chosen on the basis of “carbon footprint” and “community impact.”

It is hard to keep a straight face when analyzing the new “cash for clunkers” program.  For example, owners of the biggest old clunkers get a $3,500 credit for trading in the old vehicles for a new one with an improvement of just one mile per gallon.  Surely, it would save energy if the Treasury just mailed the $3,500 checks directly to Detroit!

Of course, the Obama administration is making some reductions in federal spending.  It is reportedly imposing a 9 percent reduction in the budget for the division in the Labor Department that polices fraud and other illegalities on the part of labor unions.  As noted below, a simultaneous expansion of business-oriented antitrust enforcement is taking place.

Turning to regulation, one of Ralph Nader’s biggest disappointments during his heyday as a consumer advocate was the failure of his proposal for a new Consumer Protection Agency.  However, the administration’s financial regulatory plan creates a powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).

This new free-wheeling agency takes authority now divided between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Reserve System.  In a change guaranteed to cause confusion, the CFPA will share authority with the Federal Trade Commission.  The new regulatory agency will also have a mandate to give consumers more economic education.  Educators find that especially scary.

Moreover, the agency will have its own money pot, independent of the normal congressional appropriations process.  It will be financed directly by fees assessed on “entities and transactions” across the financial sector.

The Treasury’s financial plan contains many other expansions of government power over business.  The Federal Reserve System is given new authority to oversee any large financial entity whose failure the Fed thinks could generate “systemic risk.”  The Treasury heads a new Financial Services Oversight Council to “resolve” the inevitable jurisdictional disputes among federal agencies.  A new Office of National Insurance is to be established in the Treasury to monitor “all aspects of the insurance industry,” a sector of the economy traditionally under the province of state governments.

The SEC will require the registration of all advisers to hedge funds and other private pools of capital with assets over a given threshold.  It also will have the power to inspect the books of the advisers and to ensure compliance by their clients.  In addition, the power of the SEC will be expanded by legislative proposals to give it a more active role in guiding the compensation committees of all public companies.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will have new authority to take over and shut down financial institutions (not just banks) whose failure is deemed to pose “systemic risk.”

Viewed in their totality, these technical financial changes would represent a historic expansion of government.  Sadly, there is little comfort in the Treasury’s warning in its 88 pages of detailed proposals:  “More can and should be done in the future.”  Comparisons with the New Deal of the 1930s are too timid.  Shades of Alexander Hamilton!

The complicated climate change bill that recently passed the House of Representatives is a dramatic example of expanding government power over the economy.  Again, the fine print deserves far more attention than it has received.  For example, buried in the 1,201 pages of detail is a provision authorizing the Department of Transportation to require automotive manufacturers to produce vehicles that can run on methanol (wood alcohol), a fuel not widely available.

Other provisions, as expected, have little to do with the subject of global warming.  For example, contractors on some energy projects must pay employees at least the locally “prevailing wage.”  It is well known that, in practice, that means paying higher union wage scales.

Many federal departments are trying to climb aboard the economic stimulus bandwagon.  The Department of Justice wants to help out by showing that antitrust should be a “frontline issue” in the response to the problems facing the economy.  Apparently, business is not getting sued often enough.  Incredibly, one new assistant attorney general views antitrust enforcers as “key members of the government’s economic recovery team.”

When we step back and try to add up all the tax, spending, and regulatory actions and proposals of the new Obama administration, the result is clear: a cumulative squeeze on private decision-making and a more slowly growing economy in the years ahead.

In the process, private businesses will be discouraged by a host of government policies from making major new investments, especially those of a long-term nature with payoffs far in the future.  Key negative factors are the likelihood of higher taxes and greater inflation resulting from the huge budget deficits that are likely to arise in the next several decades, abetted by lax monetary policies.

The American public is likely to have a long wait until the national unemployment rate gets back down to the 7.6 percent that was reported when President Obama took office in January 2009.

One fundamental point deserves to be stressed.  In the inevitable tension in public policymaking between economic prosperity and income redistribution, for the next several years the American people can expect that income equalization will get the government’s priority over improvements in people’s living standards.  The average American, at best, will receive a more equal slice of an income pie that will be far smaller than the public expects.

Murray Weidenbaum holds the Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professorship at Washington University in St. Louis, where he also serves as honorary chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy.

The size of government, particularly at the federal level, is expanding greatly. But this also has a trickle down effect on Michigan. In order to qualify for federal dollars, states frequently have to pass laws that expand their reach and authority. And they often need to continue to pay for new programs after federal funding is phased out. Short run money that appeared “free” often ends up becoming a long run obligation to state taxpayers in the end.

This is an important consideration as Michigan approaches its October 1st budget deadline, especially with the large role federal stimulus money could play in how things are balanced. It would be easy to plug too many budgetary holes with stimulus dollars, leaving us worse off in the future. It is my belief that we should have a small government, but what it does do, it should do well.

Instead, most government tries to do too much and ends up doing nothing particularly well. But the current economy will force us to make necessary decisions: what kind of government do we want, what kind of government do we need, and ultimately what are we willing to pay for?

Government shutdowns and furlough days are all signs that government is trying to do too much and more than it can handle. By definition, government can not be effective if it is not up and running.

People often ask me if I am committed to doing everything I can to avoid a government shutdown this year. The reality is that as of September 4th we will already have had six shutdown days in the form of furloughs. This is an emergency stopgap measure we can not continue to rely on if we wish to have effective government.

I am therefore introducing legislation to limit the use of furlough days to no more than six a year. Once we reach that mark, it is obvious that we need to be looking at more permanent solutions such as accelerated retirements to reduce the number of state employees while we reorganize and keep the programs that matter most up and running.

We also need to commit to ensuring taxpayers can’t be ticketed, fined, or otherwise penalized because of furlough days or an unbalanced budget. As an example I have introduced HB 5277 to make sure people aren’t fined for not renewing their licenses on furlough days that have forced the Secretary of State’s office to be closed.

HB 5230 ensures that no one has to pay money for a tax tribunal hearing more than once. I’m also working on a bill to increase the amount of interest the state pays taxpayers who are owed a refund.

An effective government has to be kept up and running, and it shouldn’t be allowed to penalize taxpayers for its own inability to right-size government.

State Rep. Paul Opsommer [send him email] was elected to a second term in the Michigan House of Representatives in November 2008.  He represents the residents of Clinton and Gratiot counties.