While that was a humorous exchange, it may have revealed a sentiment that has already proven very troublesome to any of us who claim fealty to the United States of America. He obviously feels that he has absolute authority over whatever he chooses.

Our country is a constitutional republic established by a literal document, the Constitution, which specifically itemizes the limits of governmental authority, and delineates that power across the three branches of government. The executive branch, of which Obama is the head, executes the laws which are codified by congressional legislation, which laws are also ascertained by our judiciary to be either constitutional or illegal based on interpretation of our founding documents and judicial precedent.

As such, the president cannot make laws by fiat, or declaration. He executes or enforces the laws established by Congress. For example, it would have been entirely proper for Congress to pass legislation either encouraging or demanding that British Petroleum set aside $20 billion for legitimate claims related to the gulf oil spill. But when the White House conducted their “shakedown” of British Petroleum and demanded it, where was the legal foundation for him to do that? Irrespective of the logic of BP stepping up to the plate to handle such claims, the president had no legal authority to make such demands. He also has no legal authority to pressure BP into not paying dividends to shareholders. This certainly resembles a Chicago-style “offer you can’t refuse” more than it resembles the rule of law in a constitutional republic.

Speaking of the oil spill, last week the president told Matt Lauer that he was wanting to know “whose tail to kick” for the gulf oil spill. He may not have to look very far, if we consider what led up to the catastrophe. He and his comrades in the Congress have coddled and embraced the radical environmental movement for years, and it was due to pressure from those groups that Gulf oil exploration has been pushed into ever deeper waters, as far away from coastlines as possible.

Considering Obama received massive political donations from BP, and how lax federal inspectors were with their operations in the Gulf, a logical person might wonder if the donations bought that laxity by inspectors, which placed the Gulf in jeopardy with precisely the kind of disaster we’re facing there now. You combine those two factors alone, and the president may only have to go as far as his bathroom mirror to see whose “tail to kick.”

The shakedown of BP closely resembles the shakedown of the auto industry after we, with our tax-dollars, and without our approval, bailed out Chrysler and GM. With a phone call, the president essentially fired the chairman of General Motors, wiped out all the equity of the owners of the company (the shareholders), and wiped out the principle that bondholders held in company bonds. Where was the legal authority to do that? There was no statute, no congressional action granting him that authority. Do we have a president to execute the laws of the land, or do we have a dictator in a totalitarian regime who does whatever he wants, regardless of legality?

Even Senator Robert Byrd recognizes the Chicago-style power grab occurring from the Oval Office. In a letter to the president last year, Byrd denounced the 36 “czars” appointed by the president over nearly every aspect of our lives. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.” But in spite of the recognition of this Chicago-style executive branch power grab, Congress does little to curtail presidential totalitarian actions, and serves as little more than a rubber stamp for anything he bothers to seek authorization on, like the takeover of our health care system.

Executive branch power has been increasingly steadily over the past century, but the acceleration and extent of it over the past two years is alarming. We are rapidly losing our republic, as governmental actions nearly daily expand the scope and breadth of government intrusion into our lives, limit our liberty and ability to choose, and commit multi-generational larceny against our posterity to pay for the largesse of government. We apparently are no longer a land ruled by law based on constitutional principles, when the president without legislative or constitutional authority, but by diktat can destroy equity ownership, shakedown companies for political purposes, and reshape national policy with his cadre of czars in the White House.

Published - Idaho State Journal, 06/20/10

Perhaps the best way to understand the role of the Constitution is in the context of a contractual relationship between the government and the governed. This is validated by the Preamble to the Constitution which states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

We sometimes need to be reminded that the Constitution was not just an itemization of rights for citizens and limited governmental powers for that earliest generation of Americans, but that it was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It was designed and intended to be no less of a contract between the people (collectively and individually) and our government today than any other contractual relationship. Strictly defined, and strictly applied, with assurances made to the contractual parties and recourse for violation of those terms.

When it is argued that the Constitution is a “living” document, implication is made that the precepts and principles of the Constitution are not applicable to today and provides an excuse for all types of scurrilous and specious assertions for expanded government largesse at the expense of our freedom and our money. To say that the Constitution is a “living document,” hence, not to be taken literally, is akin to asserting that the Ten Commandments are really just “Ten Suggestions.” It also affords proponents of the “living document” theory latitude to pick and choose cafeteria-style which rights established by the Constitution are legitimate or applicable today. They like freedom of speech, but not freedom to bear arms, for example.

Judicial precedent and daily judicial decisions are judged against the basic principles and rights specified by the Constitution and statute to provide applicability to today’s milieu. In that way alone is it a “living document.” Statute is how the fundamental principles of the Constitution are codified in a changing social structure, but the Constitution provides the baseline.

Provision for changing the text of that social contract was made through the amendment process, which has been done 27 times to date. To assert that the words of the Constitution are not binding is absurd, especially when itemized authority of federal governmental powers are assessed individually. The legitimacy of freedoms of speech or right to bear arms are no less legitimate than the clauses that state there are to be three branches of government.

The validity of the social contract theory is born out each time a suit or judicial decision upholds those rights assured under the constitution. Each time a citizen wins a case of free speech, it reestablishes and reaffirms the nature of that social contract between the government and the citizens, individually and collectively.

James Madison, regarded as the Father to the Constitution, said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” We have witnessed this over the generations since the founding of the country, and we see that process of “silent encroachment” of government on the freedom of the people accelerated over the past two years in a way never before witnessed. We see government dictating terms of property ownership, dictating terms of access to health care, dictating terms of energy use and private consumption, for starters.

Madison must have anticipated our current form of federal governance when he said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” It appears that the majority in Washington no longer considers the Constitution valid, as they are hell-bent on unlimited government authority over every aspect of our lives.

Historical context is no less crucial in historical methodology than it is in constitutional interpretation. Madison recognized this as well when he said, “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

The Constitution is not a “living” document. The Founders were specific in their language and did not mince words. They meant what they said. It was written precisely to prevent the incursion of government into our lives to the extent that we see it occurring today proving it is not an anachronism. It is a social contract to assure and guarantee fundamental freedom and liberty for all generations of Americans. We need to be intimately familiar with it and hold those accountable who seek to subvert the freedoms of those who are intended to have ultimate power in this republic: We the People!

Published – Idaho State Journal 06/13/10

Minimum wage laws raise unemployment. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable. Rent control leads to housing shortages. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.

These were some of the statements nearly 5,000 American adults were asked to respond to by pollsters in 2008. Daniel Klein, who conducted the poll for Zogby, reported the results in the Wall Street Journal this week.

Respondents were given eight statements, all of which are empirically indubitable in real world economics. The other statements were: Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services; A company with the largest market share is a monopoly. Empirically false statements were: Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited, and Free trade leads to unemployment.

For each of the eight statements, respondents were given five choices, whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree or are not sure. The Zogby researchers, rather than requiring the exactly right answer, only marked as erroneous the most incorrect response. Thereby, instead of having a 20% chance of selecting the correct answer, they only had a 20% chance of making the most incorrect response.

Respondents were also asked how they self-identify themselves politically. The options were, from left to right on the political spectrum, progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

The conclusions are enlightening, but not surprising considering the regulatory and fiscal mindset of the ruling Washington crowd. According to Klein, “The left flunks Econ 101.” Explaining the results, Klein states, “How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.”

Klein summarizes, “Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.” In other words, just because we wish it were so, doesn’t mean that it is. For example, we may wish that raising the minimum wage doesn’t have an impact on joblessness, but it does, especially with minorities and teenagers wanting to enter the workforce.

Did level of education make a difference in the results? Klein said it did not. "We work with three levels of schooling: (1) high school or less; (2) some college (but not a degree); (3) a college degree or more. In our data, economic enlightenment is not correlated with going to college.” That should be extremely disturbing to economics instructors. Makes you wonder if they’re teaching more ideology than economic fact.

Ronald Reagan once said, “It isn’t that liberals are ignorant, it is just that they know so much that isn’t true.” The results of this study seem to validate Reagan’s sentiment. We all have opinions, which may be more or less substantiated by empirical data. Sometimes our opinions are diametrically opposed to reality. Economic principles, once they are proven to be incorrect, should logically be abandoned by any sentient person.

Regrettably, ideology and politics often get in the way of facts, and equivocation of results are explained away as anomalies rather than correct economic principles. We see this played out daily by the Washington power elite, where different results are expected from the same actions, contrary to proven theory. They are proving their incompetence and calling into question their sanity. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Polls always have subjective elements which can tarnish the outcome. Sometimes there’s an agenda incorporated into the statements or questions of a poll that are being engineered by the pollsters to achieve a desired outcome. While that could be the case with this study, the results clearly manifest a deficiency in economic education by the left end of the political spectrum. The deficiency is not only incorrectly recognizing what works and doesn’t work, but an inability to separate fact from what their ideology dictates.

Sometimes our perspective on economic theory is tainted by the supposed good that would be done if the theory was true. Especially in this age of over-regulation, over-taxation, and over-spending, we must learn to divorce invalid economic assumptions from our desire for them to be correct. There is a cost for everything, and the cost always should be justified by a desired outcome. We simply cannot afford a spending and regulatory wish list because of good intentions. Reality and proven economic principles must be our foundation, especially since Washington seems bereft of them.

Published - Idaho State Journal, 06/06/10

The alacrity for government spending illustrated by the self-purportedly educated elite in this country displays alarming naiveté and ignorance on fiscal matters. A recent column in the Journal provided a superb example.

While walking around his neighborhood almost impishly marveling at the public parks, the roads, and his ability to dial 911 for assistance, a Journal columnist rhetorically questioned, “I am lost! I love what the government does for me. Would someone please tell me where to seriously reduce government spending?”

As my adorable 3-year-old granddaughter Addisyn would say, “Are you kidding me?” Let’s start by turning off the spigot! If your basement is being flooded due to a broken pipe, you don’t start bailing out the water, you first turn off the source and then turn your attention to reducing the water level.

Since this administration took power less than 1½ years ago, the Federal Budget has ballooned by over 60%. The yearly deficit has more than quadrupled to $1.2 trillion. The federal debt has grown from $11 trillion to over $13 trillion, and with all the Obama spending promises, that debt will burgeon to $23 trillion in the next ten years, according to the Government Accountability Office. Current debt amounts to $42,000 per American, and over $118,000 per taxpayer.

And what do we have to show for all that “wonderful” government spending? A jobless rate hovering around 10%, which Obama promised us wouldn’t go over 8% if the “stimulus” was passed, and a horrible job outlook for the foreseeable future. We have an economy that is statistically out of recession, but the recession mentality is alive and well.

The private sector, meantime, refuses to hire new workers not only because of the moribund economy, but because Obama and his facilitators in the Congress have essentially declared an all-out war on the private sector and the regulatory environment is at enmity with economic growth. Obamacare has led to the write-down of billions of dollars by American companies, including $1 billion by AT&T alone. Congress’ penchant for regulation increases the costs of operation for small businesses and large businesses alike, further hampering economic recovery and shooting job creation prospects in the foot.

The heralded financial reform recently passed by congress amounts to little more than government control of the financial sector, which banks have already said will impact their bottom line by another 20%. And you thought your bank fees were high before? Where do you think they make up that lost revenue? You pay it!

Gratefully the Idaho Constitution prohibits deficit spending, otherwise, judging from the clamor in the public sector, our lawmakers would have been pressured into doing what California, New York, and other states have been doing: maxing out the state credit cards pushing them to the brink of financial ruin.

That’s precisely what Obama and his congressional minions are doing. But the laws of fiscal restraint that apply to the rest of us don’t seem to apply to them. If we max out a credit card, not only are we unable to charge any more on it, but we eventually have to pay off the debt accrued by our imprudent and insatiable appetite for spending. Congress, however, can just increase their own spending limits, and continue to charge away.

If we as individuals do the same thing as Washington is doing these days, we’re irresponsible. Yet to the statists in our midst, our politicians are to be praised for all that wonderful government spending they do. Which begs the question: why are we held to a higher standard of fiscal responsibility and accountability with our own money than they are with someone else’s?

Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” While arguments abound as to whether government takeover of the auto industry, the student loan industry, the health care industry, and the financial services sector constitute socialism, the mentality is more than evident. And who can argue that the politicians in Washington are spending other people’s money? Ours, our children’s, and our grandchildren’s!

The president said a few months ago, “It would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today....” Yet that’s exactly what he’s doing! Didn’t Bernie Madoff just go to prison for doing the same thing? The president is committing multigenerational larceny and funding a federal government Ponzi scheme.

Congress has to be recomposed with members who aren’t so cavalier about spending without regard to the ultimate multigenerational cost. Somehow they need their limitless credit cards taken away to prevent them from bankrupting the country. Let’s turn off the spigot, and then we can talk about reducing the $45 trillion in unfunded entitlements, and odious debt they’ve run up.