Carthage Must Be Destroyed!

By Rich Kozlovich  

 

Editor's Note:  I originally published this on January 8, 2014 and some of the links not longer work.  RK 

In 2013 the United States Congress was criticized for not getting things done. The Congress “only” passed 65 new laws. Of course we have to understand that one year they passed over three hundred new laws.

What is really important to understand is when new laws are passed the baton of power is passed to the permanent bureaucracies, whose function is to make even more laws called – “rules”! In 2013 there was an average of 56 new regulations resulting from each law passed totaling 3659 new laws called – “rules”! That multiplier has been as low as 12 per new law, but that was in 2006 when Congress passed 321 new laws. If you average out the multipliers over the last ten years the average multiplier is 25.36.

So what’s the rest of the story? Last year the states passed over 40,000 new laws. If we make a broad assumption that the average multiplier applies to the states we now have a potential of 1,014,400 new laws called – “rules!” Rules created by unaccountable bureaucrats, with their own agendas and views of reality, and who, generally speaking, went to college and then into government.

During the first five years of the Obama administration regulatory costs increased by $500 billion dollars, “with $112 billion in regulatory compliance costs in 2013 alone, and predicted that the burden would continue to increase this year to as much as $143 billion”.  The federal registry, where all the regulations are listed, contain 80,224 pages this year alone.  It’s estimated that in ten years at the current rate of regulatory growth there will generate approximately 900,000 new pages of regulations, which will be on top of the approximately 800,000 pages of regulations passed in the previous ten years.

All of these regulations do one thing for sure - create jobs – for non-productive bureaucrats.  It took government employees 10.38 billion hours to do “the paperwork for the federal government in 2013, and will take 78,000 full-time employees to complete the additional paperwork.”

We also have to look at who benefits from laws and the regulations they generate.  In this kind of hyper-regulatory, high tax economy many of these laws and regulations are promoted by businesses that want to make it harder for companies that will be, or are, competitors.  As a “all aspects of business, entrepreneurship degenerates into “bribery and diplomacy.” Instead of focusing on creating value for customers, entrepreneurs spend their time lobbying for favors or to avoid penalties, trying to discern the government’s next move, anticipating or adapting to the newest regulations.”  But this was to be expected from a party that loves big government and “more” laws and regulations - all the better to control our lives.  What about the administrations that have been considered conservative, anti-big government and opposed to all these regulations?  There were more regulations passed during George W. Bush’s administration than any president since Richard Nixon.  Furthermore this idea there is some invisible divide between the left and the so-called right regarding regulations and the promotion of the all powerful state is an illusion.   

“The modern regulatory state is a bipartisan enterprise: During the half-century before President Obama's election, the greatest growth in regulation came under Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.  And the Bush administration set the stage for many of the Obama initiatives that Republicans are now attacking. Dodd-Frank's policy of designating some financial firms as "too big to fail" is a codification of the Paulson-Bernanke bailout approach of 2008. It was the Bush Treasury Department that first proposed a financial consumer-protection agency, and the Bush Environmental Protection Agency that first proposed regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Obama energy rules were authorized — and in some cases, such as the light-bulb ban, required — by a 2007 statute that President Bush vigorously championed.”

What about Richard M. Nixon?  Nixon as a strange man and still an enigma to many, and understandably so, because Nixon was the first to advocate what was called a New Federalism, which would ‘devolve’ power to state and local governments.  But he was the first one to jump on the environmental band wagon promoted by the first Earth Day in 1970.  He believed this was a precursor of public concern and he wanted to benefit from it politically.   

Eventually he passed the Clear Air Act, the Clear Water Act the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, requiring environmental impact statements for federal projects.   He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  All of which create virtual lava flows of scientifically dubious regulations, creating outrageous burdens on the American people, and the American economy.   Furthermore, all these laws and agencies give rise to lawsuits by activists that plague economic development with legal costs, studies and delays. 

What is the cost of all these federal regulations to the nation’s people?  One point eight trillion dollars a year!  And I have no idea what kind of costs of all these state laws impose on society.  So what is the solution - at least at the federal level?

No one can fix this piecemeal because it is a foundational issue and until that foundational problem is recognized it will never be solved. So what is that foundational issue? Passage of the 16^th and 17^th amendments in 1913, which laid the foundation for our doom. 

The 16^th amendment gave the federal government the right to tax income.  This gave them the right to confiscate an unending amount of society’s money, [called their fair share] and spend it like drunken sailors. That turned the federal government into an insatiable beast that can never be fed to satisfaction, creating debt that is threatening the stability of not only the nation, but the world.

The 17^th amendment changed how Senators are chosen. The Founding Fathers were determined to prevent the federal government from becoming an all too powerful entity that was centralized and out of control. In order to do this they created a government that wasn’t supposed to do very much creating a true balance of power between the central government and the state governments. In those days the word ‘state’ didn’t mean province, it meant an independent nation. So the Senators were chosen by the state governments to be ambassadors to the federal government in order to stop power grabbing by the central government.

After passage of the 17^th amendment they would be elected by popular vote, exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, because that was already what the House of Representatives was for. That amendment destroyed the balance of power - the 10^th amendment notwithstanding. As long as the 17^th exists the 10^th is meaningless, and by misusing the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution the federal government can overturn any and all local authority, and individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

“The deterioration of the Constitution’s separation of, and balance of, powers means that regulators and bureaucrats now make most laws……The executive branch increasingly imposes its will: President Obama and his administration repeatedly say they are not going to wait for Congress…...”

What about the Supreme Court?  Don’t they understand how the Commerce Clause is being misused?  Until the Rehnquist court in 1995 SCOTUS never saw a law that exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause for sixty years.  In fact, they held the view that no matter how slight the impact might be on commerce it would now be subject to federal control.  If there ever was a system for abuse and tyranny this was it, and now the states were powerless to do anything about it. 

Roman Senator Cato the Elder was born in 234 BC and believed that Carthage was too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Therefore he gave speeches ending in the phrase [no matter the topic of the speech] “Carthago delenda est”, “Carthage Must be Destroyed". 

The 16th and 17th amendments are our modern Carthage – too dangerous to exist.   This is foundational. The only fix is the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.   After that - everything else will fall into place.   But first we must be willing to recognize the 16th and 17th amendments really are the enemy - our modern Carthage! 

Sedecim et septemdecim delenda est!

Saving America by Accepting the Most Acceptable Imperfection

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”– Alexis DeTocqueville

By Rich Kozlovich 

On March 18th Paul Engel published what I think is an excellent article explaining what's needed to be done to fix the mess the federal government has turned America into, Uncle Sam has become all too powerful thanks to the 16th Amendment.  He starts with a well done history of taxes in America saying:

The income tax didn’t start with the 16th amendment; it started in 1862 to fund the Civil War. Since it was a consistent revenue stream, the income tax was sold to the people with a warning that it was necessary, the promise that it would be limited by a person’s income, and was scheduled to expire in 1870. However, that did not make it constitutional. Most likely due to the urgencies of the war, though, this tax was never challenged in court...

He goes on to explain the founding fathers view of federal tax collection saying:

Yes, Congress can collect taxes. Duties, imposts, and excises are simply different types of taxes that Congress can collect. Notice, however, that there are only three things Congress can collect taxes for:

1. To pay the debts of the United States.
2. For the common defense of the United States.
3. And for the general Welfare of the United States.

Three things, that's it!  All else was supposed to fall under the domain of the states, aka, the 10th Amendment.  He has a lot more to say that's worth reading, so I suggest reading the entire article.

I've said so often, as long as you feed the beast it will continue to grow, that's the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment made the 10th Amendment meaningless.  That made the Commerce Clause the bludgeon used to impose government mandates and directives on everything that goes on in America.  That and all the environmental laws passed by Ricard Nixon.

1913 was a seminal year in American history passing the 16rh, and 17th Amendments and creating the FED. Teddy Roosevelt, who like Wilson, believed the Constitution was an impediment to human progress, along with his progressive pals, (Romney and his ilk are their philosophical progeny) had a lot to do with bringing all that into being, with the clear intent of undermining the Constitution. 

I list who I think are the worst six Presidents of the 20th and 21st centuries in this order, and why:

1. ) Teddy Roosevelt, as he gave credibility to the progressive movement, which gave,
2. ) Woodrow Wilson the foundation to create a fascist government, and WWI gave him the excuse.
3. ) Franklyn Roosevelt as he turned Wilson’s fascist regime into the New Deal and created the massive Deep State we deal with now. 
4. ) Richard Nixon as he took all that and made federal agencies all powerful by creating a ton of environmental laws, including that nightmare Endangered Species Act, and created the EPA and OSHA.  
5. ) Jimmy Carter because of his stupid geopolitical meddling we now have a worldwide Muslim jihadist movement that's the greatest threat to western civilization since the fall of the Roman empire to Islam.  And his even dumber meddling in economics that caused the mass economic downturn in 2008 due to his 1977 Community Investment Act.   
   
6. ) Followed by the almost 12 year Obama/Biden administration, as I view all that Biden is doing is at the direction of Obama and his myrmidons.  As bad as the others have been, they didn't want to destroy America, Obama/Biden does.
   

You will notice I didn't list Clinton, and the reason why is compared to them, he wasn't that bad.  Compared to Reagan, not so good, but he wasn't much worse than all the other presidents, and a legitimate argument can be made he was better than either Bush.

There were only three conservative Presidents in the 20th century, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan, and Coolidge was the best of them all.   Philosophically I find Calvin Coolidge and Donald Trump have much in common, albeit their character and personalities are night and day.  But they knew what had to be done and were unafraid to do it.  However, I don't see anyone with the guts, or the ability, to create a movement for a Constitutional change to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. 

So, where does that leave us?  Accepting the most acceptable imperfection!

My grandfather was one of the world's great economists.  He said if you spend more than you make, you'll go broke.  What did he do for a living? He was a coal miner and a farmer.  Economics isn't all that difficult, unless you're an economist, a politician, or a government bureaucrat.

Having said that, meaningful changes can be made, and those changes start with this one foundational concept.  Stop borrowing, and stop spending, and do it now! Not spread out over time, as that can, and will, be curtailed by some future Congress, and do it massively!!!!! 

 Where to start? 

 

Start with eliminating the number of federal employees, massively, all of whom are making more than those in the private sector, and doing far less.  Eliminate 80% of the 438 agencies and sub-agencies of the federal government, and do that by "massively" cutting their funding in the budget, including the Departments of Labor, Energy, Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation.  Combine Home Land Security and Veterans Departments with the Department of Defense.  Combine Agriculture and Interior.   

 

Remember, the Post Office once was a Department, and now it's not, and it should be joined by those I've listed here, and that includes the frighteningly large number of agencies that work for those departments.  I can assure you, based on my experience in life, we won't miss the massive levels of corruption, incompetence, and dereliction of duty that's become an absolute stench in the offices of the federal government, and it's an expensive stench.

Can the Republic be fixed?  Mike Vanderboegh once stated:

“This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.”

“But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.”

One of my favorite sayings is: 

 

"We all want perfection, but the best we can hope for is the most acceptable imperfection."  

 

The most acceptable imperfection is the democratic, small government, conservative, capitalist, Judaic/Christian, God given rights, Constitutional Republic of the United States.  You know, like the one the Founding Fathers created. 

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

More Evidence of the Need for A 28th Amendment, II

By Rich Kozlovich 

First off, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana humiliated a Biden judicial nominee, Charnelle Bjelkengren, by asking her:

“Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning. “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied. “How about Article II?” Kennedy asked. Bjelkengren replied that didn’t come to mind for her either.

Okay, let's be clear, the average American might know what Article V is about as it's been in the news a lot over the last ten years, but most probably wouldn't the able to answer the Article II question.  But that's not the job of average Americans, and a condemnation of our education system, but it is part and parcel of America law.  So, let's do a little review.  

How many Articles are there and what do they do?  There are seven.  First off, we need to understand the Constitution was set up to balance the power between the three branches, and the states.  All of which has been destroyed by the 16th and 17th Amendments. 

Article I establishes the Legislative Branch to make laws governing the nation, and more. All money bills must start in the Congress, starting with the House of Representatives, including the borrowing of money, and only Congress can declare wars, all of which has been usurped in one way or the other. 

Article II establishes the Executive branch, with the goal of managing the affairs of the nation and the laws passed by Congress, via agencies of the government.  The President is the nation's chief executive officer.  However, the founders never wanted the Executive to have the power we're seeing today, and would be horrified.   The oath where the President of the United States takes to '"faithfully execute" the responsibilities as President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", has become a joke under Biden, and he's not alone, he's just the worst of the worst. 

Article III establishes the Supreme Court, and is the only Constitutionally mandated court.  All others are creations of Congress and can be dismissed, and many years ago, Congress did such a thing.  The founders, after much debate, made the mistake of giving federal justices lifetime tenure. However, it also gave the Legislature the power to determine the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, which, as far as I can tell, they've failed to exercise since the late 19th century, so now the federal judiciary thinks it can not only self-determine where their jurisdiction lies, they outrank the Legislature and the Executive, and can, and do, legislate from the bench. 

Article IV is called the Full Faith and Credit clause in order to shape and form a united nation.  It's become a problem because the nation is no longer a unified nation with unified values and principles, so coupling that with the Commerce Clause of  Article I, has made virtually everything a federal issue, including how much water can be flushed down your toilet. 

Article V describes the legal means of altering the Constitution, including a Convention of States. Now, this has been a very public issue for years, and I'm willing to bet a huge number of people in America know what Article V is all about, even if it takes a bit of memory jabbing.  For a member of the judiciary at any level not to know what Article V is all about is disgraceful testimony to their incompetence, and their unfitness to be a federal jurist, or for that matter, a jurist at any level.

Article VI is about debts, supremacy, oaths, and establishes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and requires all:

 "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  

That's also become a joke as there has never been a more anti-American, anti-Constitutional leadership in the existence of this nation, all of whom represent a very real existential threat to this nation.

Article VII – Ratification. This article details all those people who signed the Constitution, representing the original 13 states.

Okay, if asked on the street, would have been able to answer what the first five were, but I would have been stumped by six and seven.  But I'm a bugman, who writes articles, not an attorney, so I know about the first five because I've written about them in one way or the other. But for graduate of university specializing in law to not know all seven of those articles is disgraceful.  Every first year law student should absolutely know the answers Senator Kennedy asked this nominee.  

Below is a speech about the insane picks by the Biden administration for the federal judiciary by Ted Cruz that may be one of the greatest speeches ever made by a member of the Senate. 

 

 

When Senator Kennedy was questioned about this, in what I'm guessing was probably a critical way, he responded:

"Some of these nominees that have been forced in the last two years have no business being anywhere near a federal bench – they don't have any business being anywhere near a park bench."  "I don't ask the nominees, 'Do you support this precedent or you support that precedent?' I asked them to tell me about the law, tell me what the Constitution says, tell me about the relationship between the federal judiciary and our administrative agencies. These are all very basic questions."

His goal has been to ether demonstrate just how incompetent and stupid these nominees are or how qualified.  In almost every case we're finding their intelligence must be seriously called into question, their understanding of the law must be called into question, their integrity must be called into question, and their values have been shown to be absolutely destructive to the nation. Once these nitwits and misfits are appointed, there's not much that can be done about them.....and that needs to change.  

It's time to fix the one really big error made by the Founding Fathers, lifetime tenure of the federal judiciary.  It's time to pass a 28th Amendment creating age and term limits for the federal judiciary, and if possible, all federally elected officials.  If we can't have both, at least get age and term limits for the federal judiciary. 

There are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future. 

No jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist may serve after the age of seventy.  And make 9 Justices a Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing Joe Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do.

Pass this 28th Amendment, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and everything else will fall into place.

Repeal the 16th Amendment, Fix Government, Advance Freedom

By Rich Kozlovich

On January 18, 2023 y Samantha-Jo Roth published this piece, Democrats hammer House GOP over national sales tax proposal, saying:

Democrats are slamming a deal House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) reportedly made with conservative hard-liners to vote on a bill that would eliminate the tax code and replace income taxes with a 30% national sales tax.  Democrats are slamming a deal House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) reportedly made with conservative hard-liners to vote on a bill that would eliminate the tax code and replace income taxes with a 30% national sales tax.

McCarthy agreed to give Rep. Buddy Carter's (R-GA) Fair Tax Act a first-ever floor vote as part of negotiations to become House speaker. The bill would abolish the IRS and eliminate national income, payroll, estate, and corporate taxes in exchange for a 30% national sales tax. Additionally, the legislation would send out “prebate” checks to help low-income families.

Why are these people opposed to a national sales tax...really?  After all, they love taxes, so why all this angst?  Because it replaces the Progressive Income Tax system that is stunningly complex, corrupt, plays favorites, hides the fact the Capital Gains tax is a hidden tax on the poor, allows them to control industries, control people's actions, stops political action by their opponents, and most importantly, it will replace the IRS.  The greatest bureaucratic thug of the federal government, which makes up it's own rules and has it's own courts and is the greatest threat to American freedom in existence.  Even worse than the FBI, just a lot more subtle!

My accountant thinks this is a bad idea, and even said that tax would be over 25%, and he's right, but think about this.  Why are business people, and even non-business people paying untold millions of dollars a year to file our taxes?  Because the tax system is so complex even smart capable business people are incapable of filing those taxes correctly, including the quarterly estimated taxes, and if you make a mistake in your estimates, even if at the end of the year you correctly pay what's owed, they fine you for not estimating your tax correctly at the quarterly filings.  

 

Also, how much does it cost the American public to fund the IRS?  Many years ago I was in Washington and Bob Dole was the speaker, and he was asked if the Withholding Taxes taken out of our paychecks still only pays for the IRS.  I looked at the guy beside me and asked:  "What planet is this guy from?" Dole paused, thought for a second, and then said.   "I think so!" That was a shocker!!!

 

If it costs that much to keep the IRS in existence, then it's long overdue for them to go.  Think of the massive savings of getting rid of the IRS and not having to pay all those accounting fees?  That savings will eventually be passed down to the consumer.  Remember, American business have to compete for customers with other businesses, and price is always a factor in buying decisions by the consumer.

 

Most importantly, everyone will then have skin in the game. Currently over 45% of the public pay no federal income tax.  Is it any wonder they vote for those who demand more taxes, more spending, and less responsibility for those at the bottom of the economic spectrum?  But that's an illusion.

 

Remember when Leona Helmsley was attacked for saying, "only little people pay taxes"?  Well, she was right.  To the wealthy who own the businesses that create America's wealth, taxes are part of the cost of doing business, and they pass those costs on to their customers.  

 

Manufactures pass the cost down to the distributors, distributors pass those costs down to businesses that buy those products, and those business pass the cost down to the consumer, and if those consumers  don't own businesses, they can't pass those cost down to anyone, and that includes the poorest members of society.   

 

All those federal taxes are paid for by those who can't pass those costs on to someone else, and these hypocrites know it.  And if they don't know it, they may not be hypocrites, but that means they're too stupid to be in Congress making decisions about taxes.  And unfortunately, I think that's more true than not.  

 

Dan Mitchell recently wrote an article entitled, National Sales Tax Update: Test Vote for the Fair Tax, 

and where he outlines just  how bad the current system is and offers the Fair Tax as an alternative, I've never been impressed with the Flat Tax/Fair Tax concept as it seems to me it would become as complicated and convoluted as the income tax system we have now. 

 

But I think this is worth looking at anyway.  I still like the national sales tax.  Let's not be delusional.  There's no taxing system that can't be corrupted, and will be corrupted.  Stealing other people's money under a "legal" framework is too entirely tempting for politicians to resist. The big difference is, at least in my opinion, any corruption taking place with a national sales tax will be more easily detected.

Now, while I'm in favor of a national sales tax to replace income taxes, I'm not in favor of it unless the 16th Amendment is repealed.  Make no mistake.  If a national sales tax is imposed, and the 16th Amendment isn't repealed it won't be long before we have both.  An income tax and a national sales tax, and that will most likely be followed by a Value Added Tax (VAT),  just like Europe.

First things first.  Repeal the 16th Amendment, and then all good things will follow, and hopefully, followed by repealing the 17th Amendment.  Also, how about term limits for Congress and term and age limits for the federal judiciary? Big steps?  All it takes is brains and guts, and you can hire brains.  

Blast From the Past: Carthage Must Be Destroyed!

By Rich Kozlovich  

Editor's Note: I originally published this on Wednesday, January 8, 2014.  I've now updated this to meet today's reality.  While my National Debt Counter still shows 29 trillion, the claim now is we're 30 trillion dollars in debt.  Both are unacceptable and will doom the nation if not stopped and reversed.  RK

In 2013 the United States Congress was criticized for not getting things done. The Congress “only” passed 65 new laws. Of course we have to understand that one year they passed over three hundred new laws.

What is really important to understand is when new laws are passed the baton of power is passed to the permanent bureaucracies, whose function is to make even more laws called – “rules”! In 2013 there was an average of 56 new regulations resulting from each law passed totaling 3659 new laws called – “rules”! That multiplier has been as low as 12 per new law, but that was in 2006 when Congress passed 321 new laws. If you average out the multipliers over the last ten years the average multiplier is 25.36.

So what’s the rest of the story? Last year the states passed over 40,000 new laws. If we make a broad assumption that the average multiplier applies to the states we now have a potential of 1,014,400 new laws called – “rules!” Rules created by unaccountable bureaucrats, with their own agendas and views of reality, and who, generally speaking, went to college and then into government.

During the first five years of the Obama administration regulatory costs increased by $500 billion dollars, “with $112 billion in regulatory compliance costs in 2013 alone, and predicted that the burden would continue to increase this year to as much as $143 billion”.  The federal registry, where all the regulations are listed, contain 80,224 pages this year alone.  It’s estimated that in ten years at the current rate of regulatory growth there will generate approximately 900,000 new pages of regulations, which will be on top of the approximately 800,000 pages of regulations passed in the previous ten years.

All of these regulations do one thing for sure - create jobs – for non-productive bureaucrats.  It took government employees 10.38 billion hours to do “the paperwork for the federal government in 2013, and will take 78,000 full-time employees to complete the additional paperwork.” 

 

We also have to look at who benefits from laws and the regulations they generate.  In this kind of hyper-regulatory, high tax economy many of these laws and regulations are promoted by businesses that want to make it harder for companies that will be, or are, competitors.  As a result “all aspects of business, entrepreneurship degenerates into “bribery and diplomacy.” Instead of focusing on creating value for customers, entrepreneurs spend their time lobbying for favors or to avoid penalties, trying to discern the government’s next move, anticipating or adapting to the newest regulations.” 

But this was to be expected from a party that loves big government and “more” laws and regulations - all the better to control our lives.  What about the administrations that have been considered conservative, anti-big government and opposed to all these regulations?  There were more regulations passed during George W. Bush’s administration than any president since Richard Nixon.  Furthermore this idea there is some invisible divide between the left and the so-called right regarding regulations and the promotion of the all powerful state is an illusion.   

“The modern regulatory state is a bipartisan enterprise: During the half-century before President Obama's election, the greatest growth in regulation came under Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.  And the Bush administration set the stage for many of the Obama initiatives that Republicans are now attacking. Dodd-Frank's policy of designating some financial firms as "too big to fail" is a codification of the Paulson-Bernanke bailout approach of 2008. It was the Bush Treasury Department that first proposed a financial consumer-protection agency, and the Bush Environmental Protection Agency that first proposed regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Obama energy rules were authorized — and in some cases, such as the light-bulb ban, required — by a 2007 statute that President Bush vigorously championed.”

What about Richard M. Nixon?  Nixon was a strange man and still an enigma to many, and understandably so, because Nixon was the first to advocate what was called a New Federalism, which would ‘devolve’ power to state and local governments.  But he was the first one to jump on the environmental band wagon promoted by the first Earth Day in 1970.  He believed this was a precursor of public concern and he wanted to benefit from it politically.   

Eventually he passed the Clear Air Act, the Clear Water Act the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, requiring environmental impact statements for federal projects.   He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  All of which create virtual lava flows of scientifically dubious regulations, creating outrageous burdens on the American people, and the American economy.   Furthermore, all these laws and agencies give rise to lawsuits by activists that plague economic development with legal costs, studies and delays. 

What is the cost of all these federal regulations to the nation’s people?  One point eight trillion dollars a year!  And I have no idea what kind of costs of all these state laws impose on society.  So what is the solution - at least at the federal level?

For anyone trying to research just how many regulations become attached to any federal law, I wish you luck, and a lot of time.  You will find it's very difficult. Take for instance the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) passed by Jimmy Carter and ultimately the cause of the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008 causing a worldwide recession. 

As best as I can tell there were 25 regulations attached to that law, but that's deceptive because under each regulation there are Subparts and Appendices, which expands the impact of each regulation.   In effect, each regulation, or rule, becomes part of a maze of rules and regulations all presented as "explanations". 

The ultimate and actual number of regulations? Who knows, and personally, I doubt anyone knows for sure.  Rule 25 of CRA had five Subparts and two Appendices.   That's seven additional components, i.e. "explanations", which are in reality new laws passed by unelected bureaucrats. 

Let's assume that's that's typical for each CRA regulation, which I'm sure it isn't, we can now multiply those 25 regulations by seven and we get 175 "explanations"  Those "explanations" are now what we are absolutely required to follow in order to comply with one rule of one new federal law.  When you get involved with environmental laws, the numbers are off the charts, and hard to track, and I'm sure there are far more than five Subparts and two Appendices attached to each regulation, however, for analysis purposes, let's call this the "seven parts per regulation rule"!

In 2020 there were 178 federal laws passed with 3354 regulations.  That's about 19 regulations per law, but that doesn't include the Sections, Subsections and Appendices, which no one lists.  You have to actually find the law and follow the "eyes rolling back into your head" tedium to get that answer.

However, if we make a bit of a broad assumption using the "seven parts per regulation rule" for each regulation that turns those 19 regulations into 133 "explanations" that are in fact laws.  If there are an average of 8 it becomes 152.  Nine becomes 171.  Suppose the actual number is fifteen? That translates into 285 "explanations" that "must" be followed to be in compliance with federal law.  That makes them de-facto laws never passed by Congress, and the "administrative state" is now in charge, not Congress.  Do you doubt that? 

If you analyze this chart we find since 2003 Congress passed 3319 laws.  The bureaucrats created 65,582 rules averaging 25 rules per law.  If we use the "seven parts per regulation rule" we now have 459,074 explanations that are often contradictory, absolutely complicated, and invariably, more interpretations, clarifications and explanations will follow as the years go by.  If we make an assumption it could be 15 parts per rule, we get a mind boggling 983,730 "explanations".  All of which are in fact mandatory, and worse yet: 

At least 4,450 federal crimes are embedded in those laws and regulations (with some 500 new crimes added per decade) – often for minor infractions like failing to complete or file precisely correct paperwork for selling orchids or importing wood for guitars. Neither inability to understand complex edicts, lack of knowledge that they could possibly exist, nor absence of intent to violate them is a defense, and the “crime” can bring military swat teams through doors, and land “violators” in prison for months or years.

The administrative state’s battle for dominance over the Congress and the nation is pretty much a fait accompli!

No one can fix this piecemeal because it is a foundational issue and until that foundational problem is recognized it will never be solved. So what is that foundational issue? Passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments in 1913, which laid the foundation for our doom. 

The 16th amendment gave the federal government the right to tax income.  This gave them the right to confiscate an unending amount of society’s money, [called their fair share] and spend it like drunken sailors. That turned the federal government into an insatiable beast that can never be fed to satisfaction, creating debt that is threatening the stability of not only the nation, but the world.

The 17th amendment changed how Senators are chosen. The Founding Fathers were determined to prevent the federal government from becoming an all too powerful entity that was centralized and out of control. In order to do this they created a government that wasn’t supposed to do very much creating a true balance of power between the central government and the state governments. In those days the word ‘state’ didn’t mean province, it meant an independent nation. So the Senators were chosen by the state governments to be ambassadors to the federal government in order to stop power grabbing by the central government.

After passage of the 17th Amendment they would be elected by popular vote, exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, because that was already what the House of Representatives was for. That amendment destroyed the balance of power - the 10th Amendment notwithstanding. As long as the 17th exists the 10th is meaningless, and by misusing the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution the federal government can overturn any and all local authority, and individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

“The deterioration of the Constitution’s separation of, and balance of, powers means that regulators and bureaucrats now make most laws……The executive branch increasingly imposes its will: President Obama and his administration repeatedly say they are not going to wait for Congress…...”

What about the Supreme Court?  Don’t they understand how the Commerce Clause is being misused?  Until the Rehnquist court in 1995 SCOTUS never saw a law that exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause for sixty years.  In fact, they held the view that no matter how slight the impact might be on commerce it would now be subject to federal control.  If there ever was a system for abuse and tyranny this was it, and now the states were powerless to do anything about it. 

Roman Senator Cato the Elder was born in 234 BC and believed that Carthage was too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Therefore he gave speeches ending in the phrase [no matter the topic of the speech] “Carthago delenda est”, “Carthage Must be Destroyed". 

The 16th and 17th amendments are our modern Carthage – too dangerous to exist.   This is foundational. The only fix is the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.   After that - everything else will fall into place. But first we must be willing to recognize the 16th and 17th amendments really are the enemy. 

Our modern Carthage! 

Carthage Must Be Destroyed!

By Rich Kozlovich

In 2013 the United States Congress was criticized for not getting things done. The Congress “only” passed 65 new laws. Of course we have to understand that one year they passed over three hundred new laws.

What is really important to understand is when new laws are passed the baton of power is passed to the permanent bureaucracies, whose function is to make even more laws called – “rules”! In 2013 there was an average of 56 new regulations resulting from each law passed totaling 3659 new laws called – “rules”! That multiplier has been as low as 12 per new law, but that was in 2006 when Congress passed 321 new laws. If you average out the multipliers over the last ten years the average multiplier is 25.36.

So what’s the rest of the story? Last year the states passed over 40,000 new laws. If we make a broad assumption that the average multiplier applies to the states we now have a potential of 1,014,400 new laws called – “rules!” Rules created by unaccountable bureaucrats, with their own agendas and views of reality, and who, generally speaking, went to college and then into government.

During the first five years of the Obama administration regulatory costs increased by $500 billion dollars, “with $112 billion in regulatory compliance costs in 2013 alone, and predicted that the burden would continue to increase this year to as much as $143 billion”.  The federal registry, where all the regulations are listed, contain 80,224 pages this year alone.  It’s estimated that in ten years at the current rate of regulatory growth there will generate approximately 900,000 new pages of regulations, which will be on top of the approximately 800,000 pages of regulations passed in the previous ten years.

All of these regulations do one thing for sure - create jobs – for non-productive bureaucrats.  It took government employees 10.38 billion hours to do “the paperwork for the federal government in 2013, and will take 78,000 full-time employees to complete the additional paperwork.” 

We also have to look at who benefits from laws and the regulations they generate.  In this kind of hyper-regulatory, high tax economy many of these laws and regulations are promoted by businesses that want to make it harder for companies that will be, or are, competitors.  As a result “all aspects of business, entrepreneurship degenerates into “bribery and diplomacy.” Instead of focusing on creating value for customers, entrepreneurs spend their time lobbying for favors or to avoid penalties, trying to discern the government’s next move, anticipating or adapting to the newest regulations.” 

But this was to be expected from a party that loves big government and “more” laws and regulations - all the better to control our lives.  What about the administrations that have been considered conservative, anti-big government and opposed to all these regulations?  There were more regulations passed during George W. Bush’s administration than any president since Richard Nixon.  Furthermore this idea there is some invisible divide between the left and the so-called right regarding regulations and the promotion of the all powerful state is an illusion.   

“The modern regulatory state is a bipartisan enterprise: During the half-century before President Obama's election, the greatest growth in regulation came under Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.  And the Bush administration set the stage for many of the Obama initiatives that Republicans are now attacking. Dodd-Frank's policy of designating some financial firms as "too big to fail" is a codification of the Paulson-Bernanke bailout approach of 2008. It was the Bush Treasury Department that first proposed a financial consumer-protection agency, and the Bush Environmental Protection Agency that first proposed regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Obama energy rules were authorized — and in some cases, such as the light-bulb ban, required — by a 2007 statute that President Bush vigorously championed.”

What about Richard M. Nixon.  Nixon as a strange man and still an enigma to many, and understandably so, because Nixon was the first to advocate what was called a New Federalism, which would ‘devolve’ power to state and local governments.  But he was the first one to jump on the environmental band wagon promoted by the first Earth Day in 1970.  He believed this was a precursor of public concern and he wanted to benefit from it politically.   

Eventually he passed the Clear Air Act, the Clear Water Act the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, requiring environmental impact statements for federal projects.   He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  All of which create virtual lava flows of scientifically dubious regulations, creating outrageous burdens on the American people, and the American economy.   Furthermore, all these laws and agencies give rise to lawsuits by activists that plague economic development with legal costs, studies and delays. 

What is the cost of all these federal regulations to the nation’s people?  One point eight trillion dollars a year!  And I have no idea what kind of costs of all these state laws impose on society.  So what is the solution - at least at the federal level?

No one can fix this piecemeal because it is a foundational issue and until that foundational problem is recognized it will never be solved. So what is that foundational issue? Passage of the 16^th and 17^th amendments in 1913, which laid the foundation for our doom. 

The 16^th amendment gave the federal government the right to tax income.  This gave them the right to confiscate an unending amount of society’s money, [called their fair share] and spend it like drunken sailors. That turned the federal government into an insatiable beast that can never be fed to satisfaction, creating debt that is threatening the stability of not only the nation, but the world.

The 17^th amendment changed how Senators are chosen. The Founding Fathers were determined to prevent the federal government from becoming an all too powerful entity that was centralized and out of control. In order to do this they created a government that wasn’t supposed to do very much creating a true balance of power between the central government and the state governments. In those days the word ‘state’ didn’t mean province, it meant an independent nation. So the Senators were chosen by the state governments to be ambassadors to the federal government in order to stop power grabbing by the central government.

After passage of the 17^th amendment they would be elected by popular vote, exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, because that was already what the House of Representatives was for. That amendment destroyed the balance of power - the 10^th amendment notwithstanding. As long as the 17^th exists the 10^th is meaningless, and by misusing the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution the federal government can overturn any and all local authority, and individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

“The deterioration of the Constitution’s separation of, and balance of, powers means that regulators and bureaucrats now make most laws……The executive branch increasingly imposes its will: President Obama and his administration repeatedly say they are not going to wait for Congress…...”

What about the Supreme Court?  Don’t they understand how the Commerce Clause is being misused?  Until the Rehnquist court in 1995 SCOTUS never saw a law that exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause for sixty years.  In fact, they held the view that no matter how slight the impact might be on commerce it would now be subject to federal control.  If there ever was a system for abuse and tyranny this was it, and now the states were powerless to do anything about it. 

Roman Senator Cato the Elder was born in 234 BC and believed that Carthage was too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Therefore he gave speeches ending in the phrase [no matter the topic of the speech] “Carthago delenda est”, “Carthage Must be Destroyed". The 16^th and 17^th amendments are our modern Carthage – too dangerous to exist.   This is foundational. The only fix is the repeal of the 16^th and 17^th amendments.   After that - everything else will fall into place.   But first we must be willing to recognize the 16^th and 17^th amendments really are the enemy - our modern Carthage! 

Sedecim et septemdecim delenda est!