Americanly Yours

Promoting Free Markets, Free Trade, and Freedom!
Subscribe

Secession In Georgia?

April 30, 2009 By: Phred Category: Uncategorized

Here is a story that you most likely missed.  There wasnt a single mention of it in the media (any media outlets) until two weeks after it happened.

Earlier this month, the Georgia State Senate voted 43-1 in favor of a bill that would have had major consequences if it had also been passed by the State House.

The bill mentioned the 9th and 10th Amendments frequently and explained they many ways in which the Federal government has ignored those Amendments and userped State power.

But this wasnt just your typical States Rights resoultion.  The second section of the bill reads in part:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 the 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.”

Yeah.  This bill wasnt just “affirming States Rights.”  It wasnt just threatening secession.  It was asserting that any act perceived to be an unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of States or citizens would constitute a dissolving on the Union.

It then listed several offenses as examples of what could trigger the dissolution of the Nation, including:

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

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

Ill remind you that this resolution passed by a vote of 43-1.

Number IV is already being violated by the continued existence of the Federal Reserve which is a private corporation.  In other words, the passage of this bill into law would have meant that the State would be giving itself the legal right to secede–or more accurately to declare that the United States government no longer existed.  Of course, no President including Mr. Obama would ever agree that an act such as limiting the number of guns one could own would trigger the death of the Union.  And of course, it is unclear whether or not Georgia would actually follow through with their threat to secede.

This seems to be an idea which is gaining more steam in the South.  This was 2 weeks before Texas Governor Perry brought up secession at a Tea Party.  I am in the process of conducting an interview with a Republican candidate for Governor of Texas in 2010 named Larry Kilgore who is running as a secessionist.  He ran in the primary last year for Senator and won about 225,000 voted and 18.5% of the vote against a Republican incumbant.  A recent poll showed that 48% of Texas Republicans  and about 15% of Texas Democrats favor secession.  This could be an interesting race to keep an eye on.

Here in Georgia, however, I have hardly heard a word about it.  Certainly not a word from any prominant State officials.  I had no idea that the State Senate was so overwhelmingly in favor of secession.  My guess is that many of those who voted in favor of the bill, entitled “Affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles; and for other purposes” did not read the bill.  This is why you read the bill before voting on it.  Bills often have titles that dont fully explain what they are about.  The title of this bill made no reference to secession of dissolving the Union.  This bill really wasnt that long.  You can find it here.

These certainly are interesting times we live in…

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Bookmark and Share

Add to Technorati Favorites

Insuring Disaster

April 23, 2009 By: Phred Category: Uncategorized

Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and California are lobbying the government for up to $80,000,000,000 [$80 billion] in loans to bolster their flood insurance programs.

Providing residents of these areas with flood insurance lowers their costs.  This amounts to a federal subsidy for those living in hurricane zones.

Subsidies, like taxes are inducements to change behavior.  You can think of a subsidy like a negative tax–or a rebate.  A tax is a fee charged to someone for doing something.  A subsidy is a payment made to someone for doing something.

Subsidizing flood insurance for those who live in hurricane zones makes it cheaper for people to live in those zones.  This attracts more people to these areas then would naturally choose to live there.

When a hurricane inevitably destroys these areas again, the government will have to pay billions of dollars in insurance claims.  Then they will spend more money redeveloping the area.  Then they will again offer subsidized flood insurance to the residents of the area, lowering the cost of living, and thereby encouraging more people to move there.  Then another hurricane will hit the area…

This has happened so many times before.  It will likely happen again and again in the future.

While the money is being asked for in the form of loans, the terms of the loan proposals are explicitly clear that if there is a disaster, the federal government will have to pick up the tab.

The government should not subsidize people to live in disaster prone areas.  Doing so does not make sense.  It provides financial incentives for people to make a bad (or at least life threatening) decision.  It forces the rest of society to pay for these bad decisions.

The government should get out of the private insurance business.  It should let the market determine where people should live.

The Republican governors of two of the States, Louisiana and Texas have rejected some of the funds from the “stimulus” bill, but they have no problem in asking for larger handouts from the federal government.

Scientists believe that global warming will lead to an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes.  This makes subsidizing people for living in hurricane zones a much more reckless proposal.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Bookmark and Share

Add to Technorati Favorites