Our country was yet again grievously wounded because of “free trade,” “tolerance,” and interventionism.

Would that the myriad soldiers — in Texas, of all places — had availed themselves of the duty to protect themselves and their comrades and loved ones by carrying concealed weapons, this comatose piece of excrement would have been dead after the first shot was fired.

I weep for the country that used to be the United States of America but which is now the United State of Aetna, indivisible, with tyranny, oppression, and “free” “healthcare” for all.

The article to which you linked, when read through the lenses of one conversant with history (which one would expect a self-described historian to do), demonstrated far better than I could of the bankruptcy of your side. Kagan starts out by mentioning the Great Depression. He failed to note any of the actual causes of that depression. He failed to take into consideration the “adventurism,” to borrow one of your words from a recent comment, of the United States leading up to that crisis. The economic decisions in the midst and wake of the Civil War (National banking acts of 1863 and 1864 which consolidated currency to fund the Union’s war; Federal Reserve creation in 1913; Aldrich-Vreeland in 1908, etc.) and the domestic and foreign policy decisions in the wake of the war (Reconstruction; almost immediate attempts at imperialism in Santo Domingo, Cuba, and Liberia – all of which came about due to slavery and its end; westward expansion, Indian wars, Alaskan purchase; Roosevelt’s splitting of the Republicans, his appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.; financial, monetary, and fiscal management and mismanagement), not to mention World War I, all contributed directly to the spreading thin of the American military and building resentment throughout the world.

Kagan goes on to insinuate that, because the United States seemed to somehow ignore foreign policy, Japan militarized and Germany fell under Hitler’s sway. This is howlingly funny. What we are required to do if we are to accept Kagan’s hypothesis is to absolutely and unequivocally deny that black is black, that water is wet, or that fire is hot. Aside from the fact that it was American “adventurism” (e.g., with the Great White Fleet, which further fueled a zealous desire to militarize in newly-nationalist Japan) which thrust Japan on its path toward imperialism (read about Perry’s Black Ships and the cracking of isolationist Japan, the Meiji Restoration, the Manchurian, Korean, and Russian campaigns of Japan), we can hardly be faulted for “ignoring” Germany: we had shipped thousands of American boys there to fight, bleed, die, and kill, and had established a new world-political body to deal with the German problem only 20 years before the 1933 Nazification. One could be excused for refusing to read any of the rest of Kagan’s ludicrous bombast after realizing this, but, intrepid soul that I am, I trudged on.

Kagan engaged in your least-favorite pasttime. He had the balls to criticize Ronald Reagan (gasp! the horror!) in practically the same breath as he criticized Jimmy Carter. Calling Reagan’s policy decisions about Lebanon “failed” and asserting that these policies led to the bombing of the Marine barracks is hardly what one would expect to hear you lauding. Implicit in this is the recognition that we should not have been there to get bombed. Reagan quickly and wisely realized this and did exactly the right thing: he got out and left Israel to what it was perfectly, demonstrably capable of doing: defending itself and letting Beirut and the Lebanese tend to their own damned affairs. No more Marines were killed there after that. No Al-Aqsa,  ”Quds Force,” or Hezbollah started trouble by killing Americans there. What a concept.  What were “Reagan’s failed policies” in Lebanon? Assisting a “multinational force” along with French troops and others to “keep the peace” in a sectarian civil war. What spawned the Muslim hatred and subsequent suicide bombings? Perceived American preference for Maronite Catholics and the shelling of Druze areas which inadvertantly killed civilians.

Kagan touches tangentially and seemingly accidentally upon one truth: things now are probably more dangerous for the U.S., but because of our huge overseas presence and constant “spreading of democracy” or “war on terror” or “search for WNDs” (we really do need to find those nasty World Net Dailies) or whatever they’re calling it these days, not because we are letting our guard down.

People are growing weary of the wars, growing weary of the constant misequation of the United States of America with Israel by the radical Zionists, and people are growing weary of the stubborn economic hardships put upon them by constant imperialism. Bring Americans home to defend America. Root out radical Islam here and deport it. If the resistance starts here, put it down swiftly and with no remorse. But there is no way we need to be defending South Korea from a tinpot near-dead in charge of a run-down non-entity. There is no justification for making all those “security guarantees” to states in the Russian sphere of influence. There is no way you could possibly believe that Kagan essay if you know and understand history. There is no way you can continue to call yourself a conservative and defend such Wilsonianism. It is definitionally schizophrenic, or alternatively simply mendacious, to claim to be conservative and yet espouse this baseless, historically-illiterate, radical Ledeenishness while at the same time believing it makes us safer. Your apologists split their time between appealing to how much safer we are and how dangerous it’s getting. Your side constantly purports to support “democracy” and “freedom” while working overtime - often in cahoots with outright radical socialist would-be totalitarians – to quash them through Patriot Acts, occupations of foreign countries, propped-up banking cartels and outdated unionized auto companies (remember which President started those great things?). Your side is trying to cling desperately to relevance, which is understandable. But for whom are you striving?

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

It would seem New Hampshire has done everything short of drawing up articles of secession. Let us hope a) that more states follow suit in drawing up similar resolutions, and b) that the federal government takes heed. I suppose the practical reality of the discussion that Bill and I were having is that states can secede if the federal government breaches its contract with the states. Live free or die, baby!

On a side note: Does anyone know if the New Hampshire bar exam is tough?

As I uncover the other states who have proposed these types of resolutions, I will update this posting. I know Missouri proposed something similar.

UPDATE: The other states are Washington, Oklahoma, Missouri and Arizona. H/T Daily Paul

General Attributes of the Plan

As mentioned above the current overall price tag (before amendments and the inevitable earmark add-ons) is $825 billion. That is split into two general categories of spending.

The first category is $275 billion in “economic recovery tax cuts.” Presumably this is the “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” that Obama continuously talked about on the campaign trail. If there are 305 million Americans and they split the tax cut evenly, each would enjoy a lessened tax burden of $949.09 each. I’ll take it gladly; indeed, they owe us more of our own money back. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly be offset by the sun-setting of the Bush tax cuts, which there is little doubt Congress and the President will allow to expire.

The second category is $550 billion in “targeted priority investments.” According to the summary from the Committee on Appropriations, “[t]his package is the crucial first step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and being the process of transforming it for the 21^st century.” The committee summary goes on to state that, “with the passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent.” As such, assuming these numbers are correct and this package would prevent the unemployment rate from experiencing an additional 3% rise, the package will prevent the loss of 3.93 million jobs* through new unemployment claims. This means that by their own numbers, this package will not create any new jobs, as Obama has been touting, but rather would prevent the anticipated loss of 4 million jobs.

* In case anyone is interested, I came up with this number by looking at the increase in unemployment as reported on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/ces/) for the December report. That report said unemployment rose from 6.8% to 7.2% or by +0.4%. That increase corresponded with a decrease in the number of jobs of 524,000. If 0.4% is equivalent to 524,000 jobs, then 4% would equal 3.93 million jobs.

The summary acknowledges that the plan will result in “a large deficit for years to come.” But, justifies its passage by playing on the fears of not passing it: “Without it, those deficits will be devastating [as though the deficits we invite will not be] and we will face the risk of economic chaos.”

Since 2001, as worker productivity went up, 96% of the income growth in this country went to the wealthiest 10% of society [I assume they are not referring to the government]. While they were benefiting from record high worker productivity, the remaining 90% of Americans were struggling to sustain their standard [sic] of living. They sustained it by borrowing…and borrowing…and borrowing, and when they couldn’t borrow anymore, the bottom fell out. This plan will strengthen the middle class, not just Wall Street CEOs and special interests in Washington [who have already received government welfare in the form of bailouts which took priority over taxpayer relief].

Finally, before getting into the specifics of the “targeted priority investments,” it should be noted that “[t]here are no earmarks in this package.” I guess I don’t really know what an earmark, because I thought it was an appropriation that was targeted to a particular project, or “priority investment,” if you prefer. Oh well. Orwell lives.

One last note before we dive into an examination of the specific spending proposals. We should probably keep in mind that, according to most of the economists I’ve heard speak about the crisis, the overriding problem is that credit is unavailable to consumers and businesses. It is probably helpful to hold this in the forefront of one’s thoughts as he approaches each of these broad spending categories. A thoughtful person would probably ask, “Does this spending help to free up credit to consumers and businesses?”

The Targeted Priority Investments

The “Targeted Priority Investments” fall into seven broad areas.
[Please do not call them earmarks]

The first is “Clean, Efficient, American Energy.” The overall goal of this spending is the “doubling of renewable energy production and renovate buildings to make them more energy efficient.” To that end, Obama proposes to spend $32 billion on upgrading the energy delivery system (“The Grid”), $16 billion to repair public housing, and $6.2 billion to weatherize “modest income homes.”

Until very recently, I haven’t paid a ton of attention to Obama’s rhetoric about this package, but what I have heard seemed to focus on this area of spending as its main selling point. Kermit’s lament notwithstanding, Obama wants America to be green. And yet, it seems that this plan allocates only 6.5% of its budget to that end. What gives? I thought that was the focus of the plan.

A more specific beef, however, is that last line item. The government is proposing to spend $6.2 billion to weatherize poor peoples’ houses. I thought it was the fat cats that used all the energy. Why in the world would we focus our expenditures on making those who use the least energy, the most efficient? Of course, it makes no sense, but as you will see, there is a theme running through this package. It seems the package overall purpose is to give poor people as many goodies as can be packed into one bill – all while wrapping it in rhetoric that favors the “middle class.” I’m beginning to think that the part of the middle class to which I belong is being seen as the obscenely wealthy. Orwell again, I suppose.

The second area is “Transform our Economy with Science and Technology.” This is Obama’s version of faith-based initiatives, I think. All told, $16 billion is earmarked er, targeted to this spending area. To this end, Obama is proposing spending $6 billion to deliver broadband and wireless services to rural areas. (Maybe he thinks he can turn these Red areas into Blue areas with this pandering?). According to the House summary, for every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment. Even if that is true, I would guess that is largely because the market has focused on investing in high-population areas where the investment is much smaller relative to the benefit. This proposal is almost certain to lessen that ratio as each dollar will return much less benefit. It fails to occur to those in government that if there were such a clear return for providing broadband to the hinterlands, some enterprising private concern would have already done so.

There are couple other items in this category that warrant a word or two. First there is this: “$400 million to put more scientists to work doing climate change research.” This represents two-thirds of the money that is earmarked er, targeted for NASA. One hopes that the government money does not come with strings attached as to the nature of the results they expect from their money. Along those same lines, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to be given $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including censors and climate modeling. They’d better hurry because the space shuttle flights are coming to an end. They’ll probably have to purchase space on French rockets in order to do anything other than have some nice shiny satellite to put in their corporate lobbies. Between these two line items, it looks like we are firmly committed to furthering the narrative about the coming devastation of global warming, er, cooling, er, climate-change-that-could-go-either-way-but-in-the-end-will-be-catastrophic-to-life-on-earth.

Thrown into the middle, and fitting under no category, is a line item for spending $650 million to continue the coupon program to enable American households to convert from analog television transmission to digital transmission. On a spending for spending basis, this ranks in priority as more than four time more important than funding the improvement of our air traffic control system (“$150 million for research, development, and demonstration to improve aviation safety and Next Generation air traffic control”).

The third spending area is “Modernize Roads, Bridges, Transit and Waterways.” This is the other big selling point I have been hearing for Obama’s stimulus package – Green Jobs and Good Roads. All told, $90 billion dollars have been set aside for this category. This is a traditional area of federal government expenditure, and inasmuch as that is so, I really have little problem with this section. I would quibble with the government’s continuing folly with the funding of Amtrak ($1.1 billion) to make them faster and higher capacity (so there will be more empty seats – at least the ride will be roomy for Amtrak’s few customers), but overall the government should be spending money on maintaining the channels of interstate commerce. However, $9 billion is devoted to transit systems which all tend to be intrastate in nature. It seems these expenses should be borne by the States which will benefit from them and not by the federal government.

Lumped under this category, however, are several items that have little to do with roads, bridges, transit, waterways, channels of interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. For instance, $245 million are targeted for “critical IT improvements to systems that have been unable to handle workload increases” in the Farm Service Agency. Of course, the other way to solve that problem would be to shut down that program and sell whatever equipment they have at auction. Seems to me that would be a net gain going forward.

It seems that the Veterans Administration has identified a $5 billion backlog in needed repairs to its medical facilities. To address this need, the plan includes $950 million for veterans’ facilities. Does this seem to be a metaphor of this president’s views of our troops to anyone besides me? Stay tuned for Walter Reed II: the sequel.

The fourth spending area is “Education for the 21st Century.” This is the largest of the “targeted priority investments” representing more than 17% of the entire package with an outlay of $141.6 billion. It seems the days of hoping that a president would eliminate the Department of Education and restore the traditional roles of local government vis federal government are firmly behind us. We can thank George W. Bush, I think, for this with his Head Start program. Its passage has green-lighted every liberal federal intervention into our communities that they can dream up and connect to the children.

One particularly galling item is this: $13 billion devoted to IDEA special education. Keep in mind that the stimulus package states that the spending on education is to “help our kids compete with any worker in the world.” I know this is going to sound callous, but how much money will it take to make a special education student the equal of any worker in the world? Will any amount? Why do we persist in flushing our tax monies down the toilet like this? No matter what we spend on educating these students, they will still be capable of only the most menial tasks. We should teach them to tie their shoes, be continent, and maybe make sandwiches for themselves. (“No, son, the baloney goes on the inside and the bread on the outside. Not the other way around”). Beyond that, it seems we are wasting our money on attempting to “educate” special education children.

Under the banner of “signs of the times” is this one: $2 billion to provide day care for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families while their parents go to work. We truly are the nanny state, quite literally.

The fifth area of spending is “Lower Healthcare Costs.” This area represents $26.7 billion of spending. Most of that spending will be on computerizing health records ($20 billion).

Another $1.1 billion is set aside for “Healthcare Research and Quality” wherein will we conduct a study to “compare the effectiveness of different medical treatments funded by Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP” in order to find out what works best. While I cringe that this will cost us $1.1 billion, I welcome the inevitable outcome of such a study that reveals that none of it works because there is too much government involvement. But, of course, who am I kidding? They’re paying for the study. We all know how that one ends. The problem, I foresee, is that we haven’t been spending enough money on those programs.

The House summary contains the following enlightening nugget, “$600 million to address shortages [of primary care providers] and prepare our country for universal health care. (See? They already know the answer to the $1.1 billion study – I say we dispense with the charade of a study and at least save ourselves $1.1 billion).

Does anyone besides me feel like they are living through one of those scenes in the movies (wasn’t there one in one of the Indiana Jones movies) where you’re in a coal bucket careening out of control into the depths of an ancient mine toward a yawning chasm where the tracks suddenly leave off?

The sixth area of spending is “Help Workers Hurt by the Economy.” Before you get all excited thinking that maybe here there is some sort of program that addresses the credit crunch, think again. The government proposes to spend $102 billion in this area. The larger programs are $4 billion for training and employment services; $27 billion to extend unemployment benefits an additional 33 weeks; $9 billion to increase the unemployment benefit by $25 per week; $30.3 billion to help unemployed pay for COBRA; $1.5 billion “to help local communities to build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies;” and $5 billion for building repair and modernization of public housing.

On this last item, the House summary states that for every dollar spent on the Public Housing Capital Fund, there is a $2.12 economic return. This begs the question of why we don’t just spend $68 trillion on the project, reap the $144 trillion economic return and everyone can go home happy secure in the knowledge that the economy is humming blithely along.

This section contains a group of programs that seem like more of the same. First is a neighborhood stabilization program, costing $4.2 billion, to help communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant properties in order to create more affordable housing. Second, is a program, costing $1.5 billion, which would provide “temporary” rental assistance, housing relocation, and stabilization services (whatever those are) for families during crisis. Third, is a program, costing “$500 million, to support $22 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees to help rural families and individuals to buy homes during the credit crunch.” It seems out leaders don’t get that putting people who can’t afford homes in homes is a recipe for disaster. It seems the government will continue to perpetuate the same errors repeatedly of either forcing lenders to provide loans to people who can’t afford them, or by making the loans itself. We’re screwed.

There’s also a one-time welfare payment to disabled and elderly folks which will cost $4.2 billion; a $1 billion block grant for community development; $1 billion to help low-income families pay for home heating and cooling; and $1 billion to provide federal incentive funds to collect support owed to families.

The final area of spending is “Save Public Sector Jobs and Protect Vital Services.” This area is projected to cost $91 billion. This is comprised of $87 billion in Medicaid Aid to states; $2.5 billion in block grants to states to help alleviate the needs of families “and to prevent them from cutting work programs;” $4 billion to support state and local law enforcement with $1 billion of that set aside to pay for an additional 13,000 police for three years [and after that, the States are on their own, presumably]; and $1 billion for work necessary to ensure a successful 2010 census, with a special emphasis ($150 million) to ensure that minorities are not undercounted. I wonder if that is provided a la Acorn as direct bribes to overcount certain desirable demographics.

A few thoughtsAs you can see, there appears to be very little in the way of alleviating the credit crunch. Indeed, it would appear that Obama has taken advantage of a bad economy to advance a raft of new spending that will erect an unprecedented increase in bureaucracy since the New Deal. This is grossly irresponsible given the shape of the economy. He would have done better to provide an equivalent list of programs the federal government intended to discontinue.

I’ve said before, I’m not an economist, but I do have a calculator. It doesn’t take an economist to know that when a family experiences a shortfall in income, it is time to tighten the belt, not go on a spending spree. The government is no different. The country must cut its expenses and that starts with the federal government cutting spending. Putting our fiscal house in order will strengthen our economy by making investors more eager to invest in it. If we spend profligately, what incentive do we give to outside sources of income to invest in our economy? The more we piss away our money, the less enticing we look as anything other than a risky investment that someone might take on a flier.

This plan in no way addresses the underlying problem of the availability of credit or the tenuousness of the housing market (which is related). The longer the credit problem is allowed to persist, the worse the housing market will become due to illiquidity of assets and the resulting downward pressure on the value of those assets. If anything, this plan will make credit more expensive by making the investment of new money only possible by promise of a higher return on that investment (junk returns). On the other hand, fiscal restraint would make that inflow of money cheaper and more plentiful.

I think. Of course, I’m just a guy with a calculator.

It appears that rather than enter Chapter 11 reorganization, Chrysler has opted to wait out its share of the hoped-for taxpayer largesse. It will be shuttering operations beginning on Friday and, theoretically, will resume operations on January 19. Presumably by then Congress will have caved and ponied up the money so that they could resume squandering it at an alarming rate.

Not surprisingly, President Bush is considering Pelosi’s demands. However, before acceding to the demands of Pelosi, Levin, and Gettelfinger, Bush should consider the long-term costs to the economy of allowing the carmakers to escape their poor management and the union’s rapaciousness. It is acknowledged that this is to be only a bridge “loan” meaning that everyone fully expects to be back in this same position at a later date when the carmakers blow through the money. Bush should also consider whether caving in to the Democrats will make Michigan any redder, whether the Unions will switch allegiances or if, politically, it will only serve to save the bacon of a number of Democrat representatives.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it seems that diverting funds that Congress approved for the finincial markets and repurposing them to bail out the automakers may be impermissible under the Constitution’s clear rule that only Congress has the authority to spend. Congress last night rejected further spending for the purpose of bailing out Detroit. It would be violation of the separation of powers for the executive branch to conduct an end run around that inconvenient fact. Another breach of contract seems to be in the offing.

I think it can be surmised from my earlier argument (the breach of contract discussion) that I believe that state’s do possess the right to secede. It is inherent in the nature of contract that, the parties may withdraw from the compact upon a showing of breach or by mutual consent. The text of the Declaration of Independence argues strongly in favor of the idea that states possess the right to withdraw from their voluntary compacts with the federal government.

Of course, my argument was that the South did not have cause to withdraw and that it was, in fact, the South that breached its obligations under the contract. However, had the federal government breached, I believe a state would be jusitified in unilaterally declaring rescission as the remedy.  Loss of an election in itself would not provide cause. But, as we have seen from the Declaration and subsequent Revolution, if one party to the contract fundamentally changes the terms, that can provide cause. The lesson, of course, is that it is incumbent upon the national government to act with restraint and within the confines of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union. Acting beyond the sanction of the Constitution would provide a state with a claim of breach and would provide cause for separation.

Some might argue that the moment for restraint has long passed and that the contract on which this Union is premised has been irredeemibly breached. I think there is still an opportunity for reform so long as the parties remain in parity. But, that only makes the call for reform all the more urgent. I have argued that it appears that the necessary reform can only come from the formation of a third party. Neither of the current major parties appear to have the ability to exercise restraint, to honor individual freedom, or to respect the sovereignty of the states.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) – This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

Unfortunately, Monsignor Laughlin’s repudiation confuses a moral issue for a political one. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue, which has been politicized because of the nature of our country and government. Throughout history, God has used worldly governments to rule over his people. Figures such as Pharoah, Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Cyrus, and Caesar have been used by God to either chastise or deliver His people.

The United States is unique in history because of the phrase “We, the People.” Abraham Lincoln referred to the United States as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In this sense, we are the authority which God has set over us. As such, we are culpable for our actions as rulers of God’s people. To that end, every time we resort to the polling place, each of us is engaged in a moral act which has ramifications for our salvation.

During the latest election, we were given the choice between two men whose views were remarkably similar. More than one person argued with me that there was not a hair’s breadth worth of difference between the two candidates. In many ways, they were correct. The difference between the candidates was mostly in degree, but not in intent. Universal health care? One proposed to socialize medicine, while the other provided health care through the tax code. Immigration? I’m not really sure that there was any difference, frankly. The economy? The candidates disagreed only to the extent that the government should nationalize industry. Social Security? Was there a difference? The environment? One wanted massive tax increases through the imposition of cap and trade. The other wanted massive tax increases through cap and trade. Indeed, the only real difference was on the issue of abortion. I argued that this was the determinative factor and the reason conservatives should swallow their pride and vote for McCain – because there was a chance that McCain would nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas his opponent would expand the destruction of innocent life.

Viewed in this light, each voter’s prudential decision to which Monsignor Laughlin refers was between a candidate who supports the destruction of innocent life whenever convenient and one who does not. The other issues – the ones which the Monsignor implies a person might have been justified in basing his decision – were more or less the same except in their degree. Given that choice, it is clear that Father Newman’s original statement was more in keeping with the Church’s teachings.

Even if there were social justice issues that a Catholic could look to and find Obama preferable, I am at a loss to find even one that trumps the wholesale murder of millions of innocent babies. Welfare? Jobs? Education? Health care? None of them do a person any good if he is killed in the womb. Life is more important than any other social justice issue, because without the basic right to be born, there is no justice.

In that sense, the elimination of abortion is the predicate to all social justice. There is not a larger moral issue than our complicity in the killing of millions of babies. So long as we continue to engage in this barbarity, we can scarcely call ourselves a moral nation. No matter the level of congeniality we achieve racially, socio-economically, ethnically, or between the sexes, we will still merit damnation as a nation while we are killing our babies. Furthermore, Monsignor Laughlin’s comments about the well formed conscience beg the question. Can a person with a well-formed conscience vote for a candidate who will expand abortion? Because abortion is, above all else, a moral issue, the Church is singularly competent to address it. They should be forceful in their condemnation of the act. Attaching repercussions to one’s status within the community of the Church for material support of this evil is appropriate. The Diocese of Charleston should reconsider its position.

UPDATE: While Fr. Newman has taken the original letter off the parish website, as we know nothing ever truly is deleted on the Internet. Here is the cached Google page containing the original letter.

Rest assured, I will cover this in more depth when (if?) he makes his official announcement.

President Bush’s lifting of the executive order banning offshore drilling was and is a good thing. Although, it should be seen in context with a wider energy policy which seeks to develop and exploit new technologies, expands domestic onshore oil production, and diversifies our energy portfolio by bringing online more options like nuclear energy. This clearly should be coupled with conservation, even if the president will not command Americans to conserve.

In the last few months, there have been stories that indicate that the late oil price boom has not been driven solely by supply and demand, but rather by speculation in the futures market. These stories have noted that as oil prices soared, non-OPEC nations have dramatically increased production and more than met the demand. In short, supply has been outstripping demand. Simple economics confirms that this is probably true. If the commodities market, taking into account the future price of oil bets that oil prices will increase, more investors will enter the market and drive the current price up. In return, producers will increase production. At the same time, because oil consumption is extremely inelastic demand will decrease only marginally. The result is that there will be a surplus in production, which nonetheless will demand a price higher than the equilibrium point would dictate. Granted, demand is booming as previously second and third world nations modernize (India and China, conspicuously), the global demand for oil increases. But, growing demand does not tell the whole story.

The point, of course, is that effect prices at the pump today, one must craft a policy which will have an effect on the futures market. One way to do that is to commit to greatly increasing future supply. This is what the president has allowed oil companies to do. The big question in my mind is whether the oil companies will take advantage of the increased availability of drilling opportunities. Time will tell. If it appears that the United States is poised to enter the world oil market on a large scale in five to ten years, that should suffice to drive futures prices down and the price at the pump will follow. How much is anyone’s guess. Right now, I would be happy if it just stopped going up.

Now, if Pelosi and company will lift the Congressional ban, we might see some relief at the gas pump.