Since
the Federalist Papers, America has debated “Energy in the
Executive.” But President Obama’s 2014 agenda framed by his
State of the Union address heralds a class warfare agenda, one fusing an
“income inequality” theme with federal industrial policy and other activism.
“When I can act on my own without Congress, I’m going to do so,” Obama promises. This spend-and-transfer fixation makes Americans poorer and dependent except for the lucky few running things.
Others
have argued for federal budget rationality as essential to any anti-poverty
agenda. This series proposes a greater prosperity enhancing opportunity,
streamlining the nearly $2 trillion regulatory state and ending the uncertainty,
wealth destruction and job loss it creates.
Congressional
accountability and even something as dramatic as passage of the REINS Act (to require Congress to affirm major agency rules) would
target future mandates rather than the existing regulatory state…..To Read More….
Part 1: Measure Regulatory Costs
Part 2: Regulatory Benefits? Maybe Not
Part 3: Make Regulations Transparent Like the Budget
Part 4: Put a Spotlight on Economically Significant Rules
Part 5: Categorize Regulations by Impact
Part 6: Deal With The Deadweight Cost Of Regulation
Part 7: Recognize and Reduce Indirect Costs of Regulation
Part 8: Create a Culture of Repealing Regulations
Part 9: Congress Must Affirm Final Agency Rules before They Are Law
Part 1: Measure Regulatory Costs
Part 2: Regulatory Benefits? Maybe Not
Part 3: Make Regulations Transparent Like the Budget
Part 4: Put a Spotlight on Economically Significant Rules
Part 5: Categorize Regulations by Impact
Part 6: Deal With The Deadweight Cost Of Regulation
Part 7: Recognize and Reduce Indirect Costs of Regulation
Part 8: Create a Culture of Repealing Regulations
Part 9: Congress Must Affirm Final Agency Rules before They Are Law
I personally believe the only fix is the repeal of the 16h and 17th amendments. Once that happens things will start to fall into place.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of having states appoint their Senators was in order to keep a balance of power between the central government and the states. They were supposed to be the state's “ambassadors” to the central government expressing the will of each state, not the will of the people. That was what the House of Representatives were for.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers had eleven years to watch what went on in the states before adopting the Constitution and realized too much democracy wasn’t a good thing. Pennsylvania was so democratic they elected the officers of their state militia, and things didn’t go well. They realized they needed a system to prevent emotions from upsetting the apple cart, and they needed a way to slow things down.
The founding fathers therefore created a system that was a bit complex. The President served four years, the Senators six years and the Representatives two years in staggered elections. That way they could prevent emotion from running wild and turning the entire government out in one election.
The word state didn't mean province when the Constitution was agreed to. It meant a sovereign nation. That's why the U.S. was referred to as "these" United States before the Civil War, and only after the Civil War was the U.S. called "the" United States.
The 17th amendment eliminated the ability of the states to stop over reach by the federal government and the reason given for adopting it were claims of corruption in the process that needed to be eliminated. Well, I’m not surprised at the corruption, but that was for each state to resolve, not the federal government! And no matter how much corruption existed then - it was restricted to each state, not the entire nation and must have been clearly miniscule compared to the corruption we face now.
Yes…turn Senators back into appointed members of Congress representing the interests of their state.