This Will Stimulate the Economy, Right?

By On · Add Comment · In Economics

Surely 24,000,000 man hours of time spent complying with government regulations will stimulate the economy, right? According to a report by the GOP Conference,

The Committee [House Committee on Financial Services] calculates that from the 185 rules written (of the 400 rules required by the 2,300 page law), it will take more than 24,000,000 (yes, million) man hours to comply with the regulations. For more details, go here.

This regulatory burden means businesses will now be spending 24,000,000 man-hours complying with government regulations (and this is only some of the regulations in Dodd-Frank); hours that could be invested in business pursuits that might actually stimulate the economy. No one, other than perhaps federal regulators, will find compliance to be stimulative.

This is really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the regulatory burden this administration and the Democrats have inflicted on American businesses. The Heritage foundation published a major report in 2011 entitled “Red Tape Rising: A 2011 Mid-Year Report.” I recommend reading the entire report, but the bottom line is,

Following a record year of rulemaking, the Obama Administration is continuing to unleash more costly red tape. In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. No major rulemaking actions were taken to reduce regulatory burdens during this period. Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion

Coupled with having the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, these regulatory burdens emanating from the alphabet soup of government agencies makes it increasingly difficult for businesses to operate profitably in the U.S. Sadly, the Obama Administration has chosen to effectively do nothing to reduce this regulatory burden or tax burden. It is little wonder the economy is sputtering.

This is How We Win in November

By On · 1 Comment · In Opinion

This is how we win up and down the ballot in November. Let me repeat that; this is the formula for winning Republican races across the board in this critical election cycle.

We should be hammering the president on the Keystone XL pipeline

We should be pounding the issue of the escalating debt

Then there is the issues of crony capitalism and scandals such as Fast and Furious

We need to change the narrative on the Democrats “War on Women” 

The center-right in this country needs to form a united front on these issues, drive them relentlessly, without giving in. Whenever the question of contraception comes up, answer with “the president is engaged in a war on the first amendment and the economy still stinks.” The Democrats are on empty, all they have is vapid issues to drive emotionally based arguments. Let’s hit them hard with reality.

How Markos Whiffed on American Sovereignty

By On · Add Comment · In Big Government, Constitutional Destruction, Failed Liberalism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Opinion

Last night, @Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKos tweeted this:

Shortly thereafter, his @-mentions were likely flooded with tweets pointing out how wrong he was, for various reasons — some of which may have been incorrect. Sensing he “done flubbed up,” Markos turned to a strawman, tweeting this:

and suggesting that conservatives think that Jesus wrote the Bill of Rights, or something.

Feeling that it is my patriotic duty to explain why Markos is so wrong, I respectfully present this brief, and extremely simplified, explanation of the differences between British and American notions of sovereignty.

Prior to the signing of the Magna Carta, the British adhered to the notion that the King was sovereign, whereby the King was basically anointed by God with the power to rule over other men. The Magna Carta changed this; the King ceeded some power to what would become the Parliament, the current elected body of ruling ministers in Britain. Obviously, this was a huge change and it took several hundred years to progress to its current form. It was only a tiny step forward toward so-called American sovereignty, especially because for most of British history, Parliament was composed of male land-owners.

Fast-forward to the founding of the United States.

The Founding Fathers were influenced by philosophers such as John Locke, who was a proponent of the “social contract” theory. Under the social contract theory, men entered into civil society to have government as a neutral arbiter of disputes and enforcer of mankind’s rights, especially property rights. Men were also considered the true sovereigns, with their rights being derived from God or the Laws of Nature. This is a HUGE logical leap from the days of the Magna Carta.

We all know that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as described in the Declaration of Independence, derives from John Locke’s trio of “life, liberty and property” as the rights of man. But, is the notion of the sovereignty of man embedded in the Constitution, or do the rights of man come from the consent of the Government, as Markos suggests?

The answer is contained in two amendments.  First, let’s study the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment of the Constitution states:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Founders were mindful that the enumeration of rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, might allow some future tyrannical leader to decide that the literal language of the Bill of Rights contains all of the rights that the citizens of the United States possess.  Therefore, the 9th Amendment was ratified to make clear that other rights are most certainly retained by the people.  The word “retained” is key here, and it is elaborated below.  But first, what other rights are retained?

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Many consider the 10th Amendment to be the Amendment protecting “states’ rights.” While this is true, the 10th Amendment also protects the rights of the people. Indeed, reading the 9th and 10th Amendments together, one should understand that the people are the source of the rights which are not delegated to the Federal Government, or to the States (or reserved by the States in their respective Constitutions).

In other words, because the citizens of the United States retain rights, they are the source of their own rights.  Ergo, they are the true sovereigns in America. In order to live in a less chaotic society (John Locke’s social contract theory), they delegate certain rights to the government on State and Federal levels. It is impossible, or inherently disingenuous, to conclude that the Government grants rights to the people, if one reads the Bill of Rights. This simple language was simply revolutionary, and has allowed the United States to become the country it is today.

Sorry, Markos — you’re just wrong on this one.

← Previous Entries