Your government loves you and has your best interests at heart.

Those of you who have followed my blogs have come to know how truly objective I am in my reporting, and how especially tolerant and neutral I am when I blog about my beloved government. Hardly a day passes that I am not reminded of the caring benevolence spread over me by my Federal Government. Sometimes, when I realize just how thickly their concern for my well-being is spread all over me, my heart nearly bursts with love as I give thanks that I live in a country which cares enough to warn me, like a loving nanny father, about things like, say, giving in to the urge of putting a plastic bag over my head.

How many times has my government literally saved my life by mandating the printing of pictures of lifeless babies with x'ed out eyes and little tongues hanging out on the little plastic bag that my keyboard came in? Or, since I am prone to blow-drying my hair while sitting in the bathtub, how many times do you think, over the years, I have given a huge whew of relief when I've opened a new hair dryer and - just in the nick of time - saw the likeness on the plastic wrapper of the hapless schmuck with the electric bolts coming out of his ears and smoke rising from his electron-fried boyo? It boggles. I rejoice publicly in front of your prying eyes.

How long has this been going on? When did it start? I'm guessing it may have been one of the nice things Jimmy Carter did for us, but I may be wrong. It may be even older. If I try hard enough, I can conjure up long-dead (may Allah be praised) congressmen from the 1960s with fat cigars and blue smoke around their heads with skinny suspenders holding their pants up over their bloated pot-bellied pork bellies, passing major plastic-bag safety legislation in lulls between congressional pay-raise bills. And LBJ signing them as fast as his bought-and-paid-for slimy hands could sign. And then, probably, selling the pens he signed them with.

God, how proud the fallen boys from the hedgerows of France must feel as they smile down from heaven and witness the fruits of their sacrifice manifested in such greater personal freedom from intrusive government than they were able to enjoy in their brief lifetimes. How proud the Framers must be to realize just how much their progeny understands what they meant by "regulate interstate commerce". Glory.

Would I like to live in a world where the government doesn't require asinine needless warnings on plastic bags? Would I like to see all the rows of empty "handicapped parking" spaces disappear? I think I would like to leave those things up to state and local governments, thank you. One size doesn't fit all. It has NEVER been more efficient to send in your money to the Federal Government and then have them send some of it back to the states and cities wrapped neatly around new stupid regulations. EVEN if they are big enough to make me do things I don't want to do.

If the Feds want to regulate something, how about them thar bank charges? No price fixing there, by golly - it's just a big fat coincidence that all banks charge the exact same fees. Sure. Just like it is only a big fat coincidence all four gas stations on each intersection with different signs price their gasoline the same, to the penny. You bet. And how about seeing my interest rates keep going up on my credit cards even though I haven't missed a payment in 10 years? Huh? Even though the price banks pay for money has gone down and down and down to ZERO practically. How about that, Mr. and Mrs. Fed? How about putting some of your crony stock broker buddies in jail for stealing all the bail-out money YOU gave them? Hey? That'll keep you busy enough that you don't have to worry about mandating warnings on my toothpaste. I say let the Feds keep the thieving banks and credit card companies off my back and buy some decent body armor for the Army, and just leave the rest to the people. (Other people, not me.)

---------

Obligatory notice for my dear liberal readers:

All this sarcasm aside, I do believe there are some (many) things that we need our Federal Government to do - things that don't make sense for local governments or state governments to be trying to do. That's another post, since I will have to think up some things our Federal Government is better at than local governments would be good at, other than the obvious things that are outlined in the Constitution already. Among these would be uniform Civil Rights laws and enforcement. I would consider things like no child labor and not having to starve in the gutter to be civil rights.

By all means, please list all the things YOU think the Federal Government should be involved in because they love you and me and are concerned for our welfare. Don't be afraid. I won't bite.

-----------

And if I was the President

The minute the Congress'd call my name

I'd say "Now, who do... who do you think you're foolin'?"

I got the Presidential Seal

I'm up here on the Presidential Podium

And my country loves me, she loves me

She gets down on her knees and hugs me

She LOVES me like a rock

She rocks me like the Rock of Ages

My country loves me

She love me love me love me love me.

Apologies to Paul Simon. Big time.

Just an essay, not a political diatribe

There are two schools of thought as to what kind of government Americans want, and the divide between those two schools seems to be getting more and more pronounced.

On one side are the people who believe the function of government is to provide for their daily needs and wants, and on the other side are the people who seek LESS government presence in their daily lives. At the same time, to make the debate more interesting, each side constantly puts out misinformation (conservatives have no compassion for the poor and liberals are all commies) about the other side, and each plays the blame game.

So, what kind of “federal” government does the U.S. have? What was it meant to be, according to our constitution?

In 1787, the American people were asking the same question. The man who (mostly) wrote our constitution answered that question in Federalist #39: the (then proposed) constitution contemplated neither a wholly national government nor a wholly federal government, but instead a combination of both. Working through the Senate, it was to be a FEDERAL government which facilitated the interactions between the individual states, as the Senators explained the needs and desires of their states, while at the same time taking care not to intrude too closely in the affairs of the individual citizens of those states. Yet, working through the House of Representatives, it becomes very much a NATIONAL government rather than a federal government, intending simultaneously to be responsive directly to the needs of the citizens of the nation as a whole, while being denied the absolute sovereignty that a true national government has to overrule (and even abolish) local governments.

It has been a tug of war ever since as to just how closely the “federal” government might be allowed to influence the everyday lives of the national (American) citizens, and how much it should be beaten back towards the federalist end of the spectrum so the states can still function as the sovereign entities contemplated when they first banded together. Sovereign, of course, within their individual realms. This never-ending ebb and flow is the result of the biennial changing of the House of Representatives as the individual citizens make their current wishes known as to the direction their country should take.

History shows us that whenever private enterprise and states rights advocates are too successful in this never-ending tug of war, robber barons and local tyrants begin to flourish. Conversely, when the historic pendulum swings too far in the direction of a national goverment, intimate interference into the daily lives of American citizens begins to cause a stifling effect on free enterprise and, of necessity, individual liberties.

My opinion is the same as the framers of the constitution: both aspects are desireable. We need a government which can act as an impartial arbitor between the states, and also provide the services a federal government must provide in the areas of national defence and interstate commerce regulation. Yet, we also need a dose of a compassionate (and, yes, proactive) NATIONAL government to protect AMERICAN citizens at large from the excesses and parochialisms of the several states, while still not intruding into the affairs of the states beyond the powers ceded to it by those states.

It is a balancing act. Today that balance has shifted toward an overly national government, in my opinion, and our society is stagnating as a result - bogged down with burdensome interference at a national level. History tells us this will soon begin to change, if only because the bastards will soon run out of money for social programs and the people will rebel at the oppressive (and unfair - more than half of Americans don’t contribute federal income taxes now) taxation.

What many people see as a struggle between Democrats and Republicans, or between Liberals and Conservatives, or between socialists and capitalists, is really only the historically “normal” method our constitution uses to strike a healthy concensus. The current rage of nationalism - even to the extent of disolving state borders - will, if history repeats itself, again recede slowly toward the direction of federalism again.

Short of making dangerous changes to our constitution (which only the states can do) there is little permanent damage that any one fleeting administration can inflict on our republic. Not Lyndon Johnson, not Jimmy Carter, not Ronald Reagan, not George Bush, not Barack Obama. For it is not they or their vocal supporters and detractors who shape the destiny of America in the long run, but the weight of the American people which keeps the ship of state in trim.

My opinion.

---------

Federalist Number 39

Yearning to breathe free

I don’t want to be a conservative or a traditionalist. At least not in the sense that I resist change or am even wary of change.

I don’t want to be a liberal, either, though, if that means seeking and embracing change just because it is different. Change should happen for a valid reason.

Change needs to happen whenever the old way of doing things isn’t getting us where we want to go. But we must be careful to select a correct new course, and not just a different course.

The point is to show continual progress towards goals. In that sense, I am a progressive - though not in the sense that word is often used by liberals.

The whole fuss and fight, then, is about defining goals. We can’t seem to agree on our direction. Everyone has a different idea and is convinced his way is “obviously” best.

The two primary political parties in the U.S. have been fighting and obstructing each other for a long time now. It is no longer a case of two differing sets of values struggling to rise to the surface. Instead, the only thing that is important, it seems, is to block the other party from looking good in the eyes of this or that bloc of voters.

Is this really how we want to run our country? Is it not possible to sit down and find common ground on a handful of general goals? Or have we finally become just like the Israelis and Palestinians? Surely, if the goals were general enough, we could find consensus.

The general goals we set for our country should not be different than the general goals of individual citizens, should they? If individual citizens want the same general things - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - then it should be their government’s goal to secure those things for the citizens. That’s simple enough.

It’s not that simple, though, is it? For, whenever you give the government such a broad mandate, you leave it up to the government to come up with its own list of specific things it believes would make your life better, things that would make you happy. Soon, the government is sculpting out a whole life, or way of life, for you - for your own good and your own happiness, of course. Why? Because what you have really done is tell the government, “Take care of me.”

I think I would be telling the truth if I boasted that I think I have cultivated some of the most thoughtful, educated and intelligent readers a blogster has ever attracted. Right about here is where you exceptional people will begin to remind me that I am not an island; I live in a society. Living in a society brings obligations and limits to personal freedom.

I know. I have no desire to live off in the woods by myself like Thoreau. Not even if me mum brought me pies and sweets and clean shirts on the weekends. I freely admit that I like and want things like paved roads and grocery stores and fire departments and schools and good health care. I also admit I want these things for others and not just for myself. I do understand that having these things, and many others, requires that I subordinate a good deal of my free spirit to the common good. “Common Good” in this case being pretty much run by the government.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us exactly where we are today: haggling over what we want the government to provide. Each of us has a list of things we want. Some of your lists are very much longer than my own list. Obama’s list is very much longer than my list.

Okay, here’s the point (you just KNEW there was going to be a point, right?): Government doesn’t provide ANYTHING. Government doesn’t SOLVE problems. Government, in and of itself, is NEVER the answer. Only PEOPLE can build roads and hospitals and schools and take compassionate care of their neighbors. Government is only a VEHICLE for getting things done. A mechanism. A tool. The actual planning is still up to us. The actual DOING is still up to us.

It is a great mistake to assign some sort of actual “life” to the government and expect “it” to get things done for us.

Stop bitching. Get involved.

The Power Company

At the very top of everything in the USA, government-wise and authority-wise, is the U.S. Federal Government. Or so those who think they are at the top would have you believe.

The federal government is the big boss, at the very top, and it tells the states what to do. It also regulates the daily lives of U.S. citizens. Anything it wants to do, it can do. And does it ever do! Laws by the hundreds - orders for the states and the people to abide by. It knows what's best for all of us. The federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, is over all the state courts and can overturn anything the state courts do. It is very powerful indeed. How much of this paragraph is true?

While the above may have come (nearly) to pass in today's world in the USA, it isn't really anything like the writers of our constitution had in mind. It wasn't what the states had in mind when they agreed to the new constitution, either. Indeed the constitution doesn't really say anything like the above at all. So how did we get into this sorry mess (my opinion) where the servant of the states grew into a seven-headed (at least) monster that devours everything in it's path, money-wise, angers the rest of the world and strikes terror into the hearts of the states and the citizens? Let's investigate. Then let's discuss how we can tame this monster and put it back in harness.

The first (and most important) thing Americans need to remember, or be informed of, is that the the federal government has only the powers the states allow it to have. The states "cede" certain powers to the federal government, and they can "uncede" them at will (by modifying the constitution, which only the states can do.) Somehow, the federal government has bluffed the states and the people into believing that all power derives from the top, that THEY are at the top, and that they are the final word in all things.

However, our constitution is what defines who has what powers, not the bureaucrats. What does the constitution say?

Earlier, we talked about the Preamble to the constitution. Although not law, the Preamble told us why the actual constitution was being written: to make the lives of individual citizens better and to form a better union between the several states. Frankly, it left no doubt where the true power was coming from: "We, the people...".

Now we look at the very first Article of the actual constitution.

Article I, Section 1. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Oh, my. Trouble already. I would call your attention to the word "granted".

The U.S. Constitution is essentially an enumeration of the powers that the new federal government would have. It is clear from the very first sentence that this listing of federal powers was "granted" by someone or something. If something is "granted" to you, that means the person or thing doing the "granting" is superior to you. Otherwise, you could just TAKE the power.

So... who is doing the granting? Ostensibly the several states which had decided to form a union, but more correctly the PEOPLE who lived in those several states. The state governments, after all, existed only at the pleasure of the people and for the purpose of carrying out the will of the majority of those people, as made known through their representation in the state legislatures.

Remember our discussion defining what a republican form of government is? ("Republican" meaning "a republic" - nothing to do with the political party that was formed much later.) Remember that the definition of that form of government was that the power rested with the citizens of the country, but was expressed through their elected representatives.

That is the not-so-subtile difference between a republic and a pure democracy: representation. In a pure democracy, majority rules. Period. Government by referendum. We don't have that form of government. In the USA, whether at the federal level or at the state level, only very large and important issues are put directly to the people. In a republic, the people we choose to represent us engage in democracy, not the people directly (except in the actual choosing of our representation, and an occasional legitimate referendum.)

Here we could argue the merits of pure democracy, but the end result would be an agreement that it is too cumbersome (in a very populous country) to have the individual citizens vote on each and every issue that comes up. For example, should our country be attacked, it would be rather foolish to have the people vote on what to do about it. Not while we are being killed. Our representatives are supposed to keep in touch and know our minds and do what the majority of us WOULD have done. The result, of course, is that up to half the people are always dissatisfied with their representation.

This constant segment of dissatisfaction, incidentally, is what keeps representatives who wish to be reelected listening to the citizens. The loyal opposition keeps those who are in power ever vigilant, with ears constantly open. At least that was the intent.

What very important thing have we learned from the very first sentence of the constitution?

In my opinion, it is that the framers of the constitution intended to give the federal government the powers needed to govern effectively, while denying it so much power that it would have had the ability to abridge the liberty of the governed.

To be continued. (There are even more sentences to discuss. :)

Roots

This is a pretty big subject we are taking on here, maybe too big for a blog. Even so, we can use blogging to at least bring out some facts, air some points of view, and, above all, discuss the issues.

I started this series of posts because I am tired of hearing Americans calling each other names.

What I hope to accomplish, as always, is to clarify. Knowledge is power. Knowledge and clarity of purpose will defeat those who would manipulate you.

At first, I thought my premise for these posts was simply that our federal government has gotten too big and too intrusive, far beyond what the writers of our constitution intended or envisioned it to be, and, as a result, many important things today are not being taken care of effectively. After only two posts, I realize already that simply pointing out the bigness and resulting unresponsiveness to the needs of the people, is not going to accomplish much. Many people already agree with me that government is too big and too unresponsive.

So, instead, I think it might be more productive for us to try and formulate a consensus of what we would want our federal government to become, and what issues we would like to see addressed, and come up with ways for these problems to be effectively addressed. Along the way, I hope we can also begin to drop the labels.

Where to begin? Since this is going to take awhile, why not begin at the beginning and lay the proper foundation? Starting at the beginning may be especially useful because I am blessed with several readers who are not Americans, who are not necessarily completely familiar with our origins and our government, but whom I hope to still involve in this discussion. In a larger sense, this discussion affects non-Americans very much indeed. So, by starting at the beginning, I can maybe bring some of them along with me if I can keep their interest. I should also mention that if one's goal is truly clarity, it is always a good idea to start at the beginning anyway.

I intend to sprinkle in posts on other subjects to keep the interest of readers who may not be interested so much in the ways and perceived sins of our federal government.

Before we begin at the beginning, though, how many of you can tell what form of government we have in the USA?

1. A monarchy

2. A dictatorship

3. A democracy

4. Something else

---------

On to the beginning. The real beginning might be Athens, Greece, a long time ago. It might even be farther back in time than that. I don't want to go quite that far back though. How about we start with a simple summary of where the country called the United States of America came from, and work our way up to the point where we got ourselves something called a federal government? Feral government. Whatever.

Europeans began coming to this part of the world a long time ago. The Spanish came in 1492, but even before that the Vikings came. The British began coming in the late 16th century, and the first permanent British settlement, at Jamestown, was in 1607 if memory serves. There was an earlier British settlement, also in Virginia, that failed. The Dutch came only a few years later, 1612 I think, concentrating only in what is now the city of New York and up the Hudson to Albany. Feel free to correct me.

This land when all these various Europeans came was hardly uninhabited, so none of them "discovered" the Americas. They did discover the new lands for the Europeans, though, and soon there were plenty of Europeans camped out in the Americas.

The British settled on what is now the East Coast of the country now called the USA, primarily between present-day Massachusetts and Georgia at first.

The various British colonies were established by companies or men who had royal charters or investors to explore and settle the new lands, with the usual intent being to prosper the land for the benefit of the British crown or the company's investors. In the end, there were 13 of these British colonies.

Again, feel free to make corrections to this overview, since I am doing it from memory and there may be errors.

In a sense, even before our revolution against the British crown, we have always had a sort of federal government. Back then the "federal government" was simply the British government, and our ancestors' fortunes ebbed and flowed pretty much at the whims of the British Parliament.

The actual country called the United States of America didn't come about until after our ancestors fought a successful revolution against the government of Great Britain.

It is important to remember that up until that revolution, the 13 colonies were very much separate entities. Travel between them was allowed and common, but they each had their own legislatures and their values and were not necessarily all that compatible either. In those days of few and poor roads, and travel by horse, it was serious business to travel even from Boston to New York - and travel to the Carolinas or Georgia was a major event. This was long before the railroads, of course.

I bring these points out only to  remind you that the colonies at that time were not exactly united entities with overall common purposes. A Virginian was very much a Virginian. A New Yorker was very much a New Yorker. The life of a backwoods planter in South Carolina was almost as foreign to the life of a Massachusetts lawyer as the man in the moon.

It is especially important for you Europeans and Africans reading this to take note of this individualism of the several colonies, and the states that subsequently evolved from them. It would be a huge mistake for you to think of our states in the same general manner as you think of your counties.

The colonies, later states, were almost more akin to separate countries than merely united geographical subdivisions of one big happy country: no such big happy country existed yet. To a certain extent, you would be wise to think of even the present-day states as being very separate in many ways. You will understand the inner workings of the current USA better if you keep that in your mind.

When the rotating inattentions and oppressions of the British Parliament, and other reasons, finally brought on a revolution, those very different colonies united against their common enemy and each contributed men and materials to a common army (although they often remained colonial militias, as do many present-day U.S. Army units remain state militas, or "guards.")

This unification for a common cause was unnatural for the separate colonies. It was the revolution that gave them their first taste of some sort of larger unity, although even after the revolution they still didn't quite think of themselves as part of a larger country. This feeling of separateness, or independence, and distrust of an outside government would continue through even the first attempt at a national government: quite frankly, the first attempt at a central government failed.

Tomorrow: the USA's first federal government.

---------

Answer to question about the form of government the USA has:

4. Something else.

The United States of America is a republic. A republic is a state whose power derives from the people rather than from a ruler. This, as opposed to a (true) monarchy or dictatorship where the power is at the top and the people at the bottom are the subjects.

Labels, continued

Glancing at the fuel gauge as I was driving today reminded me again of the labels we Americans have been pasting on each other the last few years. Once again we have Left and Right, don't we?

The Left is "empty" - empty old ideas and empty promises that never quite come to pass. And the Right is "full" - full of hot air and full of hot-shot plans for a better America that also never seem to materialize.

The main thing that occurred to me, though, was how much we need to get away from labels altogether. We need to stop trying to marginalize our fellow Americans, stop demonizing each other. We have very different ideas on how to proceed, but we still have a common goal, I think.

If we are going to use a Left and Right "fuel gauge", let's change the labels on it at least. On the left is "Big Government", say; and on the right is "Personal Freedom", say. And the closer our lives get to "Big Government", the less "Personal Freedom" we have.

It is always a trade-off. Having no government at all doesn't work. Libertarians are dreamers who omit the everyday need for all societies to have an adequate authority, a government. Pure "Personal Freedom" doesn't exist unless you are alone on the planet. Pure "Personal Freedom" hasn't existed in America since the days of the westward expansion, where a man could  go up into the mountains and just lose himself, totally alone with no other human contact. Such a man could do whatever he pleased. And with that pure "Personal Freedom" came life or death consequences. No society, no government, no help if you needed it.

On the other hand, we have come too far toward the other direction in our present time, in my opinion. We have come very close to womb-to-tomb reliance on big government, and have given up much in the way of personal freedoms along the way.

I am not necessarily lamenting the loss of certain of these freedoms: I don't think I miss being able to strap on a gun like they did in the Old West, for example. Sometimes I do long to be able to open a business without having to get the government's permission and pay to be licensed and inspected. Here I started to say that licenses and inspections are all for the better and that there is less Snake Oil in the marketplace than in my great-grandfather's time. But that's not really so.

Much of this growth in government is unavoidable. There are Americans alive today who remember when the population of our country was 150 million people. It is double that size today. Twice as many houses. More than twice as many cars honking at each other. So, by virtue of us being twice as large, we have had to cut down on the personal freedoms - just to get along with one another. More or less.

It has gone too far though. A couple of years ago, I replaced the sidewalk that runs in front of my house. I had to go down to the city and get a permit to do this, of course. Or at least the contractor had to do it. In the process, I found that the federal government was involved in my little project too. See... the new sidewalk had to be flat where both driveways cross it to enter my property. Not being able to make the sidewalk slant at the entrances means my car scrapes on the bottom when I drive up into my driveway now, since I live on a little hill and the driveways are steep. There was no problem before when the sidewalk was slanted starting at the road.

Why did the federal government require that I construct it perfectly flat? The city didn't care. The county didn't care. The state didn't care. Well, the federal government some years back passed a law, a very well-meaning law I might add, called the Americans With Disabilities Act. This created many things, such as requirements for ramps instead of stairs, and a certain number of handicapped parking spots in parking lots, and automatic doors, and wide elevators and special bathroom stalls and on and on and on. It lead to city buses having ramps to lift wheelchairs into the bus through a special door, and many more things. America has always been concerned with trying to make each citizen equal with other citizens as much as possible, so I'm not complaining. But what does this have to do with the sidewalk I put in front of my house?

Well, it had to be flat so that all the wheelchair traffic that passes in front of my house will not lean to the side when they cross my driveways. You may be wondering how many wheelchairs have passed in front of my house in the last 50 years. None. And you don't see any wheelchairs downtown using the little ramps that have replaced curbs on each intersection either. Why should they? - all they have to do is make a telephone call and a special van with a ramp comes and picks them up and takes them where they need to go. But if they DID want to cruise the downtown sidewalks (or any other sidewalk in town) they won't be bothered by curbs. And they won't tilt slightly to one side if they ever decide cross my driveways, either.

Of course, when the Feds pass these laws, they seldom fund them. And I guarantee the Feds did not help pay the extra cost for re-engineering my sidewalk. I guarantee the state, county and city did not help either, although the latter will charge me extra for the special inspection and Federal ADA certification. So who does that leave to pay? Hmmmm.

This is just a personal example I can give you of the ridiculous intrusions the federal government has made into the daily lives of citizens. The U.S. Constitution, in which the states gave the federal government certain powers, says, in my reading, that the federal government is established to do two things: regulate interstate commerce and provide for the national defense. Oh! How far they have stretched the former to include my humble sidewalk!

To be continued. I assure you.