Limited Government

Many of us who have spent any amount of time studying the Constitution still maintain that this document under which the second form of the federal government of the United States was created was designed in order to limit the scope of that government.  While there was a consensus that the Articles of Confederation had created a central body too weak to much longer survive, there was still a great deal of concern so soon after the Revolution that one much stronger would prove equally inimical to both the rights of the states and those of citizens.


And so it was that in "The Federalist Papers" James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay sought to allay the fears of the people that this new document did not do just that.  Of course they did so following a very strict interpretation of this document, a point of view no longer widely held by many of those currently in power; but by doing so they managed to get each of the thirteen original States to ratify the document.  Even then, ratification was not assured without an agreement placing some additional protection into the document itself, and the first ten amendments or "Bill of Rights" were born.


Today's far more liberal interpretations of the Constitution, as well as the often voiced concept of a 'living Constitution' are causing some of us to revisit this concept of a 'limited government'.  We are challenged however in that strict interpretation by a two-party ruling elite far more concerned with protecting their own rice bowl than with the rights of the people that they swore to serve when taking their oath of office.  Perhaps therefore, it's time that we took up once again the concept of additional protection from an over-reaching national legislature and bureaucracy.  


I therefore propose that we begin to lobby for an addition to the Republican Party Platform in the months leading up to the convention in Tampa for ... Term Limits.  Don't get me wrong here, I don't propose that we limit the terms in office of legislators, much as I would like to, as there is little chance that we could get those elected to office to lift their heads from the government trough long enough to even consider such blasphemy.  Instead I would like to propose a mandatory limit on the length of time that any new law or regulation can remain in effect without being approved again.  Failing to gain that approval, such a law or regulation in question would be automatically rescinded.  Without seeking demand for a specific timetable, I would off the suggestion of three years for new legislation passed by Congress and one year for new regulations instituted by agencies and bureaucrats without the approval of Congress.


The time periods themselves are less important however than the concept of a forced review.  Suggesting a three year review for legislation should allow for the periodic party swings in the legislature.  If a law has merit, such merit and the law itself should prove easy to defend even amidst the pendulum swings of party public favor and renewal should still be all but assured.  Should such legislation prove over time to have been either inadequate or over-reaching, the three year period should prove sufficient to allow it to lapse with no loss of face to either party or the legislators who originally passed it.


As for regulations, since most do not go through the debate of 'elected officials' in the first place, the review process should come much quicker.  Legislators who have abrogated their Constitutionally mandated responsibility and authority to create law in this country would be forced to take up the issue of accountability that much quicker and at least attempt to do the will of the people; and be themselves judged for doing so.


In addition to addressing new laws, a process which likewise mandates the review of at least 10% of existing legislation should become a part of this obligation.  There are far too many confusing and contradictory laws and regulations on the books to allow for continued addition to their number.  A recognition of this fact and a way to force the a clean up of the issued cannot help but have a positive effect.  A mandatory review would likewise provide the incentive and political cover for elected officials to do so without jeopardizing their political futures.  It would likewise put agencies and bureaucrats on notice that their actions should not be unilaterally attempted without eventual consequences.


Now many might believe that placing Congress under such an enormous encumbrance would not allow them time to pass 'new' legislation or regulation.  So be it!  If one job was created or saved by virtue of bringing the runaway train of the national legislature under even that much control, it would be worth it.  Perhaps the burden of such a mandatory review would be just the caution that Congress requires before imposing its will in the way of new laws and rules. The national register (the list of federal regulations) is already over 81,000 pages long.  That single fact alone should dictate that it's far past time that something can and must be done to provide new limits.  The tax code is over 71,000 pages, far too complex for anyone to comprehend or be able to comply with.  Forcing Congress to review each law or regulation may be just the impetus that they need to simplify the entire tax code.


At the very least, adoption of such a proposal into the platform of one of the major political parties might scare potential candidates from taking on such a burden, and dissuade today's generation of professional politicians from seeking to return to the job.  Recognizing this as comparable 'Labors and Sisyphus' may allow some new blood to finally seep into the anemic arteries of a largely spineless group of lawmakers; thereby promoting the real hope and change that this country so desperately needs.

Dear Santa 2011

Santa Claus

c/o North Pole

Dear Santa,

Listen, I know that this is kind of late and that you have a lot of letters to read at this time of year (especially with the problems that the Post Office is having getting stuff delivered), so I'll get right to the point.

It seems that there are some people out there who could use a few things, and might forget to put them on their lists. So I thought I would try, on their behalf of course, to help them out. Don't get me wrong Santa, they're not children (though it would be difficult to believe this, based on the way they act much of the time) and I'm sure that more than a few of them are on your 'naughty' list rather than your 'nice' one. You may even find them rather hard to sort out, except by the fact that they've been elected to public office.

Yes that's right Santa, I want you to bring presents to politicians. No don't worry Santa, I haven't gone any crazier than usual. There's just a couple of things that I think you could give politicians right now that might turn out to be gifts for all of us. Yes Santa, I know that we already give politicians too much (when they're not taking more), but these particular selections might be considered vitally important to the national interest (and will probably be as welcome as the rabbit pajamas my grandma gave me when I was seven, and that I still have nightmares about).

Anyway, here's my list:

A new Calculator: Maybe you could find a special one with a really big display that shows all the zeros in a trillion dollars (the regular ones don't). I'm not sure that those in Congress actually understand that, or they wouldn't keep throwing that number around like it wasn't as big as it actually is.

A new Dictionary: Listen Santa, there seems to be some real confusion out there about what constitutes a 'tax', or what the definitions of 'spending cuts','fair share', 'entitlement', and 'rights' are. If you gave them a dictionary, they might look these words up when they get confused before voting on laws (you will note that I didn't say read, as most of the time they appear to vote on them before they read them these days).

A copy of the National Register: Yes Santa, I know that the book listing all federal regulations has 81,405 pages (and maybe more since I wrote this), and that it will be hard to load them into the sleigh; but then that's the point isn't it. Maybe if you block their view of the tree with this monster, they will get the message that what doesn't appear to them as enough is far too much already. If you really want to get the point across, stack a copy of the tax code (71,684 pages and growing) on top of it.

A copy of the Constitution: As long as you are adding to their reading lists, I thought that you might add this one. Yes, I know that they keep a copy on display in Washington Santa; but I'm not sure how many have ever bothered to look at it, even while they “solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic, that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. I know that they've got these really neat little pocket editions (because I have a couple), so I was thinking that maybe you could use them as stocking stuffers.

I know I haven't asked for anything for myself this year, but I didn't ask for anything last year either, and you still managed to show up with some pretty great stuff … thanks. I'm especially thankful to you by the way, for whatever you give Michael Miller that convinces him to put my writing efforts up in the Toledo Free Press (maybe if you give him a little more, I'll make the print edition more often).

I know that there are a lot of people out there whose need is far greater than mine, so you would be doing me a big favor to help them out as much as you can instead. (Come to think of it, you might want to get lots of them copies of “Holiday Wishes” through the TFP, which would help twice over.)

Merry Christmas,

Tim



P.S. If you want to stop by again this year while making your rounds, you are more than welcome; and the cookies and milk will be on me. Besides, we never did finish that discussion on diets that don't work and the proper care of white beards.

.

December 7th

.

(Update: Some hours after this post was put up, the House did in fact pass REINS by a vote of 241-84, with 4 Democrats crossing over and joining the Republicans present for passage.  The White House issued a press release threatening to veto it if the Senate passes the measure.)


It would be difficult for anyone in this nation not to realize that today is the 70th anniversary of the attack at Pearl Harbor; and many today writing blog posts will touch on the dastardly nature of the attack, the courage that so many exhibited on that awful day, and the terrible sense of purpose that awakened in the American people as it entered the last conflict ever preceded by a Declaration of War by Congress.  While I have written such efforts myself in the past, I found myself focusing on another part of the story instead.

Many know (or at least should know if they had  paid attention in American History or watched any of the number of films about the attack), the US at the time could decrypt the Japanese diplomatic code, but not the military one; and there were hints and warning in those communications that went largely ignored.  What most forget however, is that not only weren't the operational army and navy commanders at Pearl Harbor (or any of the other major commands around the world) privy to much of the information in these decryptions, but perhaps even President Roosevelt himself was not included on everything that was being translated in those messages.  

Regulations that had been put in place for the safety of a nation under the threat of impending war by some in unelected positions, in fact did everything but protect us.  Thousands of lives were lost, at least in part, as a consequence of this misjudgment. The men who created these regulations were not evil, but were misguided in thinking that they and they alone knew best what was best for the nation.  These thoughts struck a chord in me as I considered a couple of things that have recently come to my attention.
 
A recent piece in the City Journal called "The Regulatory Thicket" by Iain Murray and David Schoenbrod speak directly about regulation, and its astonishing growth in this country.  Of course it would be easy to blame Congress (and mostly accurate)  for creating their share of this ponderous pile of policy; but that would be letting them off the hook for likewise creating the un-elected and out-of-control bureaucratic monster to whom they have relinquished the responsibility for the rest of it.  As Mr Schoenbrod tells us, "The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that since 1980, federal regulators have written more than 130,000 rules, an ever-thickening tangle that Americans and American firms must reckon with."  Mr Murray goes on to cite an annual report compiled by Wayne Crews called "The Ten Thousand Commandments" that shows that the Federal Register (the big book of Federal regulations) has grown since 1996 from 67,000 to 81,405 pages.   

One cannot help but wonder at what could possibly have possibly been going on in a 15 year period that it required this 18% increase in regulations.  While questioning the cause, one might also wish to consider what impact the regulatory beast has on the economic growth of businesses in this country in the current recession; especially small ones whose small staffs make dealing with compliance even more difficult.  The 'City Journal' piece in fact states:  "The costs of complying with regulations average $10,585 per employee" according to the Small Business Administration (SBA), "enough to throw a small firm of 20 employees with $200,000 in profits into just-breaking-even territory".  Murray reports that the SBA  estimates that, "the regulatory burden on our economy is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually".

(It should be pointed out that these numbers are before most of the "Affordable Health Care Act" (Obamacare) became law, and before a great number of the regulations required for its full implementation are yet in place.)

One cannot help but compare such sums to the amounts being tossed around by the Administration, Congress, and Keynesian economists for what they believe is the type of stimulus ideally required to jump start the US economy.  What kind of stimulus might be produced if this regulatory morass were in temporarily reduced; or better still, eliminated?

Strangely enough, Congress is currently considering HR 10, the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011". The REINS Act (man, they really need better acronyms for these bills) is designed to impede the addition of new rules by dividing regulations in two categories of cost, using $100 million worth of burden as line between "major" and "non-major" ones.  Major ones would require submission to the Congressional committee whose responsibilities the regulation would fall under, and passage by a joint resolution of Congress or by Executive order before going into effect.  Non-major rules would go into effect unless, after similar review by Congressional committee, a joint resolution of Congress is passed or Executive order issued to keep them from doing so.

Of course, even if REINS manages to get through the House, there isn't a prayer that the Senate will allow it to see the light of day.  Reduction in government regulation is tied to the potential number of unionized government workers required to write and enforce them.  This is turn is tied to the unions those workers belong to, unions who have pledged significant sums to the re-election of the President and other incumbent politicians in Washington this close to an election; which is anything but good politics.

Such potential roadblocks do not deter Murray and Schoenbrod from taking it even further however. They propose setting up a bipartisan commission to review existing rules and identify those that need repeal.  This group would conduct cost / benefit analysis of such regulations and make recommendations to the House for their continuance or removal.  They further suggest a five year 'sunset provision' on all new regulations, which would make them subject to automatic review before extension.  They even have the temerity to suggest creating 'enterprise zones' where businesses might be free of some of these onerous regulations to be able to establish themselves on a profitable basis at lower costs.

Of course these are all intelligent (and some would say common sense) ideas, but like many considered in 1941, they seem unlikely to be put in place.  I can't help but think back on this day however, and wonder if whether Admiral Husband E Kimmel would have wished for a few less regulations early in December of 1941.



.