Americanly Yours

The news leaked several days ago that in tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama will speak about the need to curb the government’s out of control spending.  He will announce spending freezes on “non discretionary,” non military spending, as well as pay and bonus freezes on some political appointees.

To put this announcement in context, I want you to imagine a 400 lb man who was eating 3100 calories per day a year ago.  A year ago, the man started eating 3555 calories per day (an increase of 455 calories–14.67%) and gained 64 lbs during the past year and now weighs 464 lbs–an increase of 16%.  Now, the even fatter man realizes that his weight has become an even more serious problem and he hatches a plan to deal with it.  He decides that he will freeze the increases in his caloric intake from most snacks for the next three years.  However, he decides that instead of cutting his meal sizes, he will actually continue to increase their sizes.  He will also increase the sizes of some of his snacks, while freezing the growth in the sizes of other snacks.  He concludes that these meals and snacks are essential to his survival and that therefore he must increase their sizes if he wants to get healthy.

Does this example sound far fetched?  It isnt.  The numbers used above are scaled down numbers from our federal budget.

Our 2009 budget, passed in 2008 under President Bush called for $3.1 trillion in spending.  Of this, $1.89 trillion was “mandatory”–it funded government social welfare programs.  These are the meals described above.  The remaining $1.21 trillion was considered discretionary funding–these are the snacks described above.

But, included in the discretionary funding of that budget was $515.4 billion for the Defense Department, $145.2 billion for the War on Terror, $37.6 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $44.8 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs.  That total is $743 billion.  These are the snacks that the man above will not only continue to eat, but will actually increase the size of.

Now, lets look at the 2010 budget which was proposed by President Obama last February.  This budget had $3.55 trillion in spending.  Of this, $2.184 trillion was “mandatory.”  This is an increase of 15.6% in only one year.  As you can see, the costs of Social Security, Medicare, and other programs are rising rapidly.

The remaining $1.368 trillion was considered discretionary.  The cost of these snacks increased by $13.1% in that single year.

In other words, while discretionary costs are rapidly rising they are not the biggest problem.  Our mandatory costs are not only bigger than our discretionary costs–but mandatory costs are increasing at a much faster rate than are discretionary costs.

But,this budget included $663.7 billion for the Defense Department, $52.5 billions for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and $42.7 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.  The total here was $758.9 billion.  This is an increase of about 2.14%.

If President Obama were proposing to cap the annual growth in the total budget at 2.14%, the majority of Americnas would be pleased.  However, as mentioned above this spending freeze will not include mandatory spending–the biggest and fastest growing part of the budget.  But, just like the fat man described above, our national debt increased by 16% in President Obama’s first year–and just like that fat man, we are going to increase what we eat.

The government is cooking itself bigger meals as well as increasing the size of its snacks.  This is not the way to get in shape.  Using our analogy of the overweight man, we see that at best, this will only slow the rate at which the man gets fatter.

And, we would be fools to think that the President’s freeze on discretionary spending actually means a freeze on discretionary spending.  The news of the spending freeze was leaked the other day, but this morning news leaked that the President was going to request a 6.2% increase in the education budget.

Of course this money will come with strings attached.  Federal money always comes with strings attached and efforts to increase federal control.  Federal funding for education is nothing more than a move by the federal government to expropriate the money from Americans through taxes and then sell that money back to State education departments and local districts in exchange for influence.  The Carter Administration nationalized education in 1979 and the effect has been disastrous: steady declines in education all across the nation and sharp increases in costs of education.  These federal actions have made the American people pay more money for less education.  But, we cant be surprised by the Obama Administration’s efforts to further erode local and family control over yet another aspect of our lives.

On top of this, President Obama will announce an $8 billion high speed rail initiative in Florida tomorrow.  This sounds nice, but the fact of the matter is that the high speed rail systems proposed by the government is a horrible idea that will be extremely costly, bad for the environment, and will not be high speed!  This isnt actually a new plan, but rather a rehashing of a plan that President Obama put forward last year.

The good people at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation put together a report on this plan last year.  You can find that report here.  Here are a few excerpts:

“The FRA is not proposing to build 200-mph bullet trains throughout the U.S. Instead, in most places it is proposing to upgrade existing freight lines to allow passenger trains to run as fast as 110 mph – which means average speeds of only 55-75 mph. This would actually be slower than driving for anyone whose origin and destination are not both right next to a train station.” (Page 6)

“Even with these optimistic assumptions, high-speed rail reduces corridor transportation energy consumption by only 8.3 percent. This means the operational energy and greenhouse gas savings fall to zero if we assume instead that automobiles and airplanes are, by 2025, just 8.3 percent more energy efficient than they are today. If automakers meet Obama’s fuel-efficiency standards, autos will be more than 30 percent more efficient in 2025 than they are today, so high-speed rail will actually be wasting energy.” (Page 21)

“the FRA system will carry each person an average of 58 miles per year.” (Page 25)

But, these are just the two spending increases that have been leaked today.  If we factor in the “mandatory” increases in social welfare programs, the increases in defense and intelligence budgets, and the new jobs/stimulus programs that Congress is almost sure to pass, we are still looking at heafty budget increases.

The man in my analogy would be stupid to not go on a diet.  Our government should do the same.  It needs to stop eating snacks where it can and begin to reduce the size of its meals to a sustainable level.

If President Obama is serious about preventing the looming debt crisis from wiping out decades of economic growth, he needs to change his tone.  Instead of just freezing spending in certain areas while allowing the already bloated budget to expand, Mr. Obama should cut the budget where possible.  He should also look for ways to stop the increases in the costs of mandatory spending before it is too late.

But of course, it may already be too late.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The phrase “you never get a second chance to make a first impression” works for Presidents too.  President Obama’s first year in office has been marked by failure after failure.  His only remarkable legislative success, last year’s “stimulus” bill is itself a failure.  But just how has the  first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency been a failure?  Lets take a brief look:

Economy:

The economy continues to deteriorate under President Obama’s leadership. When President Obama pitched the “stimulus” bill to the skeptical American public, we were told that if this “crucial” bill was not passed soon (ie, before Congress had ample time to read the bill) then the economy would face devastating consequences.  This was of course a well calculated and bold faced LIE.  The fact of the matter is that the majority of the spending in the “urgent stimulus” bill were not going to be spent for over a year.  We were warned by the Administration that failure to pass the bill would cause unemployment to skyrocket and could cause it to reach as high as 9%, but passing the bill would keep unemployment from raising above 8% (see this chart put out by the Obama Administration to urge support for the “stimulus”).  So, we passed the bill and despite (or because of) this, the official unemployment rate surged past 9% and currently sits at 10%.  Of course, the 10% figure is a lie as well.  Previous administrations changed the way that the unemployment rate was measured in order to disguise how bad things really were.  This U-6 unemployment figure is still reported by the government, however, the government now uses U-3 as the official unemployment number.  While U-3 unemployment is 10%, U-6 unemployment is 17.3%.  This figure was 13.5% one year ago.  Simply put, things are bad.  But, government data collection is shady and should not be trusted as definitive.  Shadow Government Statistics, a private data collection/analysis website places unemployment at over 22%!

Ben Bernanke failed to see the impending collapse even shortly before the economy tanked.  While a candidate for President, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized the economic policies of the Bush Administration.  By choosing to reappoint Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, President Obama was giving his tacit approval to the policies of the Bush Administration.

The administration has also increased the national debt to dangerous levels.  The US is now in serious risk of having its credit rating downgraded.  Any hopes of an economic recovery would be shattered if this were to happen.

Foreign Policy:

Candidate Obama repeatedly attacked the Bush Administration on three fronts: the economy, the wars, and foreign relations.  President Obama has failed to correct the errors of the Bush Administration on any of these areas.  As mentioned above, President Obama has continued the “stimulus” and bailout policies initiated by President Bush.  His reappointment of President Bush’s Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confirms the fact that President Obama’s economic policies are not notably different than those of President Bush.

The second area where candidate Obama frequently attacked the Bush Administration was his handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Mr. Obama criticized President Bush’s Iraqi surge, falsely claiming that it was not a success.  If I were a candidate who ran on a platform of change and who repeatedly criticized the previous administration’s military policies, I surely would not have allowed the previous President’s Defense Secretary to continue serving.  Furthermore, if I had attacked the former President’s Iraqi surge strategy, I would not have employed a similar strategy in Afghanistan.  However, President Obama has done both of these things.  He kept Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his position, and he has sent an additional 68,000 troops to Afghanistan since taking office (many of those troops were sent in the weeks following the President’s claiming of the Nobel Peace Prize).

Candidate Obama promised to have all of the combat troops out of Iraq within 18 months after taking office.  That leaves him less than six months to remove over 100 thousand troops from Iraq.  Id put the chances of this happening right at zero.  More likely, President Obama will declare that the troops in Iraq are no longer combat troops (despite the fact that they will almost surely be engaging in combat).

President Obama missed a historic opportunity to improve relations with Cuba.  Since taking over, Raul Castro has introduced many positive reforms, introducing notions of private property, increasing wages for productive workers, and allowing Cubans to take advantage of certain technologies.  Raul Castro’s Cuba still has a very long way to go, but any movement in the right direction should be seen as positive.  Candidate Obama pledged to improve relations with Cuba.  Instead, President Obama has continued to support the same policies towards Cuba which have failed for the past 48 years.  Of course, this si just one example of this administration’s failed foreign policy.

Candidate Obama pledged to repair our strained relations with foreign nations.  President Obama has failed at this as well.  He has been publicly scolded by Russia’s Putin, Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy, and other allies.  In fact, I would argue that our foreign relations have not noticably improved with a single foreign nation since President Obama’s inauguration.

Agenda:

President Obama has almost completely failed in his efforts to push his agenda during his first year.

Remember, this President was the candidate who vigorously campaigned on a platform of “change.”  There have been few noticeable changes in the previous year.

With sizable majorities in Congress and a public eager for change, President Obama should have had a relatively easy time pushing through at least some major parts of his agenda.  The only major bill that President Obama was able to push through Congress during his first year in office was the “stimulus bill.”  This was a bill which was passed by using intimidation, threats, fuzzy math, erroneous estimates, and down right lies.  The “stimulus” bill was a costly mistake that did little if anything to stimulate the economy but will cost taxpayers around $1 trillion when the time comes to repay the costs of financing this bill.

Congressional Democrats pushed various health care reform bills for well over 6 months.  During this time, President Obama showed almost zero leadership on this issue, basically promising to sign any bill that came out of Congress.

Had President Obama taken a leadership role and urged Congress to pass a series of smaller health care reforms instead of trying to push a sweeping bill down the throats of an adamantly opposed American public, he could have signed several of these reforms months ago and moved onto other pressing issues.  Instead, Democrats wasted the better part of a year, alienated a large portion of American voters, and came up empty handed.  Democrats might now adopt the strategy of pushing through smaller, incremental reforms, although it could even be too late for that approach.

Opponents of government controlled health care can thank President Obama’s complete lack of management abilities for preventing the nationalization of health care that seemed to be a foregone conclusion several months ago.

The President’s inability to lead has also prevented the passing of cap and trade and several other government intrusions into the lives of individuals.  He has placed his coalition in danger time after time, and now seriously risks losing the House of Representatives in November.  Things also look increasingly likely that the Senate may be in play in November as well.  More ont his in a future article, but it is beginning to look very likely that Democrats will lose President Obama’s former Senate seat, Vice President Biden’s former Senate seat, Harry Reid’s Seat, and possibly Hillary Clinton’s seat.  This would have been unthinkable only one year ago, but then again so would a Republican winning Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat.  President Obama has alienated Democratic voters to a degree that even the most optimistic Republican would have thought to be impossible a year ago.

President Obama should follow the lead of Domino’s Pizza: soak in and address the valid criticisms, revamp his “product,” and use his rhetorical skills to sell his new image to the public.  Failure to do so can only lead to a changing of the guard in the 2012 Presidential election.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I have written previously about my opinion of the Democrats’ health care bills.  I have also written about the economic problems which this bill will cause.  I have questioned the need for this bill by dispelling the myth that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance because they cannot afford it.  Additionally, I have written about the declines in quality of health care that are sure to come following the enactment of these plans.

One thing I have not written much about is the legality of passing this type of health care reform.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  No matter how much we all want a new law, regulation, or program, this new law, regulation, or program is illegal if not authorized by the Constitution.  The rule of law is the idea that leaders and government officials must follow the law just as common people must follow the law.  If our leaders violate the Constitution while pursuing reforms. they are violating the rule of law.

Although a majority (or at least a plurality) of Americans have opposed the Democrats’ health care plan in EVERY SINGLE POLL on the issue for over a month now, a bill has passed the House of Representatives and a similar bill will almost certainly pass the Senate this Thursday.  However, the popularity or unpopularity of a law has no bearing on its Constitutionality.

The first problem with this bill is the “insurance mandate.”  If this bill is enacted into law, all Americans who can afford to purchase health insurance but fail to do so are subject to a fine of $750.  Failure to pay this fine will lead to a prison sentence.  One obvious question here is why, if health insurance is so good and vital do people have to be threatened with jail time for not purchasing it? More troubling than this question is the legal basis for imposing such a mandate on Americans.

There is no historical precedent for this type of mandate.  A similar insurance mandate was considered in a 1994 health care bill which prompted CBO analysts to write: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

More importantly though, there is not a Constitutional precedent for an insurance mandate.  Read the entire Constitution as many times as you like: you will find nothing in the document which grants the government the right to force citizens to purchase a privately produced product.  Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the “enumerated powers” of Congress.  There is absolutely no mention of anything even remotely relating to a) the right of Congress to enact laws regarding health care b) the right of Congress to force Americans to buy a product from a private company under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

Liberals will likely argue that Congress does have the power to enact this type of mandate (and this health care bill as a whole) by citing three clauses within Article 1, Section 8: the “general welfare clause,” the “commerce clause,” and the “necessary and proper clause.”  Here is why they are wrong on all three points.

The “general welfare” clause of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

Liberals see the phrase “general Welfare of the United States” to mean that Congress has the right to provide for the good and welfare of citizens of the United States.  This is an incorrect and dangerous view of the Constitution.  The Constitution was written to create a new federal government by mutual consent of independent States.  Thus, the name United States meant just that–States which were united as partners in a common government.

The meaning of this clause in the Constitution therefore means that Congress has the power to provide for the “general welfare of the States.”  By no means does this clause imply that Congress has the right to provide for the “general welfare of all American citizens.”  Such a power was neither written, nor implied in this clause.

But dont take my word for it.  The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison agreed with my sentiments when he said:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children,establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;they may assume the provision of the poor;they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police,would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

The “commerce clause” of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  The interpretation of this clause has been widened greatly over the years, helping nationalists as well as socialists consolidate power on the federal level.  However, even given the wide interpretation of this clause, Congress lacks the power to nationally mandate health care.

I (as well as many others) previously advocated allowing consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines.  The reasoning here was that allowing a national insurance market to emerge would increase competition and lead to more insurance carriers, lower costs, and better products (as it has done in many other industries).  However, Congress long ago prohibited the slae of insurance plans across state lines.

This measure is one of the primary reasons why health care costs are out of control, making it one of the primary reasons why the system is broken, in turn making it one of the primary reasons why the Democrats are attempting to nationalize health care.

However, this measure is also a major reason why it is unconstitutional for Congress to nationalize health care.  Yes, Congress does have the right to regulate commerce between the states.  However, Congress has no power whatsoever to regulate commerce within an individual state.  By refusing to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, Congress has lost any legal right it would have to regulate health care.

Thus, Congress has created a sort of legal “catch-22.”

Perhaps the most common excuse that big government proponents use to enact statist policies is the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution.  The “necessary and proper clause” reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power…  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Liberals (and conservatives when it is convenient for them) tend to stop paying attention to this clause after the word “proper” and interpret it to mean that Congress has the power to do as it wishes, as long as the measure is both necessary and proper.  This is not true.  As clearly stated above, Congress can only [legally] pass laws which are necessary and proper to executing the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

But, even if this clause does allow Congress to pass any law that is both “necessary and proper,” the insurance mandate is still an unconstitutional violation of this clause.  For a law to meet the qualifications in the above clause, the law would have to be both “necessary,” and “proper.”

The fact of the matter is that this mandate is not “necessary.”  Many people are uninsured by choice.  They have the means to purchase insurance but for whatever reason choose not to.  I wrote about this more extensively here.  But here are a few quotes:

“A lot of other people are also voluntarily uninsured.  For example, about 9 million people (more than one in five of the uninsured) are eligible for employer insurance and decline to enroll even though the employer share of the premium is usually nominal.”

“The largest increase in the number of uninsured in recent years has occurred among higher-income families.”

“Further, over the past decade, the number of uninsured increased by 54% in households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and by 130% among households earning $75,000 or more.  By contrast, in households earning less than $50,000 the number of uninsured decreased approximately 3%.”

What the above quotes indicate is that many people who do have the financial ability to purchase health care coverage decline to do so.  These people would prefer to use their money to purchase other items, or to save.  For these people, it is NOT necessary that they have health insurance.

Two further reasons why this bill is unconstitutional are found in the Constitution in Article I, Section 9.

One clause in Section 9 reads as follows:

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” A bill of attainder is a law which targets a specific group of people.  Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under penalty of fine or imprisonment violates this prohibition by directly targeting those who choose not to purchase insurance.

I spoke with Dr. Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, and the legal scholar behind the D.C. v. Heller case.  I asked Dr. Levy if the proposed individual mandate constitutes a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder.  His response is below (all emphasis added by me):

“As you correctly note, Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution forbids the federal government from enacting bills of attainder – broadly defined as legislative acts, civil or criminal, that inflict punishment without a judicial trial.  The most egregious bills of attainder designate by name the parties to be punished.  But the Supreme Court has also invalidated legislation where the names are omitted, yet could be ascertained without great difficulty. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) (federal crime for member of Communist party to serve as officer of labor union).

Legislative bodies are supposed to enact general rules, broadly applicable, that grant rights, impose obligations, or prohibit acts.  The judiciary then decides whether specific persons are entitled to a right or bound by an obligation or prohibition.  In carrying out their function, courts have to follow prescribed procedures — e.g., jury trials and rules of evidence — that are not applicable to legislatures. That’s why the Bill of Attainder Clause was included in the Constitution — to prevent legislatures from punishing identifiable persons or groups without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.

For the Bill of Attainder Clause to be successfully invoked, a court would have to conclude that it was the legislature’s intent to punish rather than to regulate for a legitimate political purpose.  In my view, the prospects for a successful bill of attainder challenge to the insurance mandate are negligible – but only because the Supreme Court is less attentive than you and I to the Constitution.“

Besides the insurance mandate, this bill fails on several other Constitutional grounds.  The 10th Amendment reads as follows: 

“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.” This expressly means that all powers not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution belong to the states or the people.  Thus, because health care is not mentioned in the Constitution, this power belongs to individual states.

While this provision would allow states to create their own state run health acre plans, it would not allow states to require insurance mandates, nor would it allow them to ban the provision of private health insurance.  According to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, “No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The prohibition on laws impairing the obligation of contracts means that no state can interfere with the rights of citizens to enter into private contracts with insurance providers (or with any other business).

Finally, as mentioned above Congress has already declared that health insurance is not classified as interstate commerce.  Remember that by denying insurance providers the right to sell insurance across state lines, they have made health care an intrastate issue, rather than an interstate issue.  Congress simply does not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how badly liberals want this bill to pass, it is unconstitutional.  Congress does not have the legal power to enact this law.

I hate to even bring this up, but there is one way that the Democrats could pass a bill of this magnitude legally; they would need to amend the Constitution to grant Congress the right to provide health care.

Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. has proposed such an amendment.  While I would oppose the ratification of this amendment, its ratification would at least lay the legal grounds under which the government could provide health care.  Until such an amendment passes, the federal government’s legislation regarding health care is in direct violation of the Constitution, and as such, should be ignored or nullified by the States.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Tweet This Post

How exactly did we get to the point where government owned banks started charging credit card holders fees for paying off their balances every month?

The government passed laws like the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially mandated banks to loan to people who would not have been able to obtain loans otherwise.  Then, the government and the Federal Reserve created money out of thin air and lent it to banks at absurdly low rates.  Flush with new and cheap money, these banks massively increased their lending to “sub-prime” borrowers (begin bubble).  With the money supply growing at unprecedented rates in the 1990’s and this decade, there was always enough money for banks to make loans.  Borrowers were able to take out second mortgages at very low rates.  Home builders rapidly built houses to meet soaring (bubble-induced) demand.

As with all bubbles, this one burst, leaving home builders unable to sell newly built houses and borrowers unable to meet their obligations.  Banks had sold off the rights to their lender’s payments so they would have more money to make new loans.  This left the banks in the same boat as homeowners who could not make their payments.  But, while homeowners and home builders had to file for bankruptcy and sell off their assets to pay their debts, the banks used their lobbyists, fear, and their ownership of the Federal Reserve to convince our government to bal them out.

The government and the Federal Reserve then printed up a bunch of money–they simply created it out of thin air–and gave it to the banks in exchange for ownership.

This happened on October 3rd, 2008.  I can understand the government’s perverse rationale that led it to bail out these banks.  What I can not understand is why, over a year later, the government continues to own large stakes in these banks.

The government has now taken to regulating the salaries of banking officials, as well as the actions and practices of these banks.

So, it comes as no surprise to the observant that the government would use its power and control to create perverse incentives.

Bank of America and Citigroup–two firms now under the ownership of the federal government have begun implementing new fees.  These fees are not on late payments, gong over one’s credit limit, or cash advances.  Instead, these government owned banks have announced fees for customers who regularly pay off their balances.  Customers who leave monthly balances on their cards will not be charged the fees.

A fee is similar to a tax (especially if t is levied by a government owned entity).  Both taxes and fees use pricing to create incentives to change behavior.

Because Bank of America and Citigroup are owned by the government, a fee on those who pay off their balances regularly can be viewed as a tax on them.  Because those who leave monthly balances on their cards are exempt from these fees, this can be viewed as a subsidy for those who leave balances.

Our government is creating perverse and dangerous incentives: they are incentivizing debt and discouraging good and proper financial habits.

But, you cant hardly be surprised by this.  After all:  our perverse government’s perverse actions do tend to lead to perverse incentives.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I have rarely praised President Obama or even agreed with his policies.  This is not because of a knee-jerk partisan reaction, but rather because of genuine economic and philosophical opposition to nearly every policy enacted and/or championed by this administration.

As I dont hesitate to criticize the President’s bad policies, I must also praise those that I do agree with.  This week, President Obama announced this week that his administration will no longer prosecute violators of federal marijuana policy unless they are violating federal as well as State laws.

This is a big step in the right direction.  For decades now, the federal government has perpetuated a “war on drugs.”  This war has criminalized substances and by this action has created a new class of criminals.  It has forced the production, distribution, and use of these substances underground, contributing greatly to the rise in gang violence throughout the nation.  This war has led to the arrest of millions of Americans, violating their individual liberties and often their property rights in the process.  This war has shattered families.  Finally, this war has cost billions directly (through increased policing and incarceration costs), as well as indirectly (by incarcerating members of society and therefore removing their productive capabilities).

Many States now allow the use and sale of marijuana for medical purposes.  It is simply morally wrong for the government to outlaw any substance which has the potential to ease the pain and suffering of people with chronic illnesses including cancer.

I am pleased that President Obama is following the 10th Amendment on this issue.  The 10th Amendment reads as follows:  “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.” There is absolutely no provision in the US Constitution which gives the federal government the power to regulate drugs, meaning that control over this issue rests with individuals or the States.  President Obama has decided not to uphold an unconstitutional law.  I support this.

However, I would urge President Obama to reread the 10th Amendment, and then take further action.  Rather than not enforcing federal law, President Obama should immediately call for the repeal of all federal laws involving the using, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana within one’s own State.  These laws are unconstitutional and violate the spirit, as well as the letter of the Constitution.

Furthermore, President Obama should repeal all federal drug laws involving the using, cultivation, or distribution of any drug within one’s own State.  Let the people decide what should be allowed in their own areas.  A national one size fits all policy for drugs is not only unconstitutional, but it also violates the rights of individuals and communities to decide what is appropriate for themselves.

Additionally, it appears that there may be some confusion about the President’s new policy.  Just yesterday, the DEA arrested 18 Americans in California for violating federal laws regarding the cultivation of marijuana.  I know that the President’s policy was just announced this week, but this arrest seems to be in violation of this new policy.  Federal laws regarding marijuana must be repealed if this type of confusion is to be avoided in the future.

I also urge the President to use his pardoning power to grant full pardons to anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated for violating the laws that he is no longer enforcing.  I would also urge him to go further and pardon all people who have been arrested under federal laws for any drug crime which was non violent and did not involve selling these substances to minors.

Finally, I must once again praise President Obama for adhering to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution on this issue.  However, I must urge him to respect and follow the Constitution and the 10th Amendment on more issues in the future.  It is unreasonable for President Obama to respect the legally defined distinction between State and federal powers on this issue while ignoring them on a slew of other issues.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Tweet This Post