How This Works

HOW THIS WORKS


These essays will hopefully end up in a book eventually. It would be great if they get adopted as campaign planks for a large group of right-minded individuals who would make themselves available as office holders to reform our government. I do not know how many will eventually be posted, but I will post more as I do the research. You can help. Post comments either here or after whichever essay you wish to comment on. It is easy. I will attempt to see them all, and if they qualify, I will attempt to incorporate your thoughts into the essays.

The essays are in groups. You can see the groups under the Label headers at the top left of the blog. You might want to start at the OVERVIEW label and see what I hope will happen and how. Then, pick the subject that interests you, click that Label and those essays will be displayed.

I hope that you find this a pleasant and enlightening reading experience. Please enjoy. AND PLEASE COMMENT! Let me know what you like, don't like, etc. If you want to make a private comment, e-mail me at ctzn2010@gmail.com.

Citizen 2010

2010 Federalist. No. 51, Unions and the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States makes no mention of labor unions. From that, one would conclude that issues dealing with labor unions would be left to the states. However, that has not always been the case. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the Power To…regulate Commerce…among the several states…” Using this clause led to an alliance between the government and unions.
In the Federalist No. 42, James Madison wrote about the regulation of commerce.

“To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.”

The regulation was about the transportation of commerce between the states so that one or several states could not interfere with the foreign or domestic commerce of another. Clearly, this was about transportation and internal tariffs, and not about regulation of commerce directly. Alexander Hamilton echoed this same opinion in Federalist No. 22. Clearly, commerce itself was not to be regulated directly by Congress, but the Congress was to protect commerce from one state assuring that it not be restricted by any other state. Surely this covered the formation of labor unions, too.

According to Morgan Reynolds, emeritus professor of economics at Texas A&M University and former chief economist at the US Department of Labor 2001–2002, from Mises Daily, Friday, July 17, 2009,

“The courts struggled with the legal status of labor unions from the beginning: were such combinations or labor cartels lawful or not? According to some legal doctrines, unions were "criminal conspiracies in restraint of trade" and illegal combinations to fix prices (for labor services).

“In the early 20th century, union membership rose to 6% of the labor force. There were 2.7 million members by 1913, and the share stayed around 6–7% until 1917.

“In 1912, Congress supplied new assistance with the Lloyd-LaFollette Act to compel collective bargaining by the US Post Office and encourage postal-union membership.”

World War I saw an increase in union membership, but after the war, membership declined. Reynolds continues:

“The end of the war ended prounion interventions. By 1924, the union share of the labor force had slipped to 8%, and by 1933 had eroded to the same 6% as thirty years before.”

Using the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, Reynolds reports:

“A sequence of federal laws beginning in 1888 regulated railway labor matters, and Congress passed the 1926 law in almost the identical form agreed on by the major railroads and unions. The act, amended in 1934, essentially dictated collective bargaining for all interstate railroads and set up machinery for governmental intervention in labor disputes.”

Federal laws over the next several years continued to vacillate between pro and con, and then in from 1931 to 1936 several laws were enacted establishing labor standards and finally a minimum wage in 1938. All of this was considered to be legal under the right of Congress to regulate commerce. In 2008, according to Reynolds, private companies employed about 8.3 million workers, 7.6% of the total. But government-employed wage and salary workers now numbered 7.8 million or 36.8% of that work force. Public sector unions were now firmly established.

President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988 in 1962, which promoted unionism in the federal bureaucracy. His reasoning was sound – labor unions had been significant contributors to his campaign fund. Here was a clear example of unions buying federal favorable influence and being rewarded by government, which in turn created more union jobs and consequently more money for campaign donations and influence buying.

Influence buying is not the only danger for Public Sector Unions. Unionized government workers have abandoned their jobs during labor disputes. On Aug. 3, 1981, more than 12,000 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization struck and walked off their jobs. President Ronald Reagan was put in the unenviable position of ordering the strikers back to work. They had taken an oath not to strike, it was against the law for them to strike and their job abandonment left a large portion of the population at risk due to safety issues. Reagan fired most of them after they ignored his order, but that left our nation having to replace and train a large workforce. Today H.R. 413/S. 3194, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill is making its way through Congress. This would eventually put all police, firefighters and EMT into public-sector unions. What happens if they walk off the job? How beholden will these unions be to the federal government representatives who passed this bill? How much money will be collected through dues to provide the campaign funds needed by those representatives? How much will the citizens of each government entity have their tax rates increased to pay for these “donations”?

Who are these unions influencing governments and how much are they donating? (The Public-Sector unions are highlighted.) From OpenSecrets.org, Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees $42,766,111
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $32,287,595
National Education Association $30,605,430
Laborers Union $29,614,800
Teamsters Union $28,515,934
Service Employees International Union $28,474,182
Carpenters and Joiners Union $28,386,933
American Federation of Teachers $27,713,391
Communications Workers of America $27,558,796
United Auto Workers $26,241,902
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $25,717,777
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $24,655,133
National Association of Letter Carriers $19,909,784
AFL-CIO $18,369,496
Sheet Metal Workers Union $17,257,813
Plumbers and Pipefitters Union $17,012,851
International Association of Fire Fighters $16,830,243
Operating Engineers Union $16,457,265
Air Line Pilots Association $16,124,777
United Steelworkers $14,096,151
United Transportation Union $14,010,510
Ironworkers Union $13,743,475
American Postal Workers Union $12,285,973
National Air Traffic Controllers Association $11,014,938
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association $10,558,000
Seafarers International Union $ 8,487,644
Marine Engineers Beneficial Association $ 7,484,377

What makes this worse is that these “donations” are taken from employee dues without their having a voice in where they will be donated or even if they are willing to donate at all. The workers are effectively held hostage by the unions. What makes it worse yet is that government employees do not create wealth. Private employees create wealth, and it is the private employees who are paying the taxes set by lawmakers that are funneled back to the unions, including the public-sector unions, and then passed back to the lawmakers as campaign funds.

In times past, private company employees have been rewarded based on the amount of wealth being created by the company. They lead the government employees in pay and benefits, as it should be. But no more. On March 8, 2010, Dennis Cauchon reported in USATODAY that federal pay has surpassed private sector pay in eight out of ten jobs where the federal government has the same classification of worker as the private sector. The average federal pay was $67,691 as compared to $60,046 in the private sector. Furthermore, this does not include the value of health, pension and other benefits. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, federal employees received $40,785 each vs. $9,882 per private worker, $30,903 more than their private sector counterparts who produce the wealth that pays the taxes that pay the government employees.

As President Obama and the liberal democrats in Congress continue to use federal contracts to drive more workers into unions, especially the SEIU, we have to demand different actions from our Congressional representatives. We should demand that they not fund legislation or executive orders that increase or support public-sector unions. We should also demand that they pass new laws that

1. End all government unions at all levels of government,

2. Outlaw any further unionization of public-sector employees,

3. Forbid any unions from using any portion of dues for political contributions and

4. Put an end to using the commerce clause in the Constitution as an excuse to meddle in private commerce.

Citizen 2010

2010 Federalist. No. 42, The Invasion of the United States of America

According to Chelsea Schilling writing “Foreign 'terrorists' breach U.S. border” for WorldNetDailey, we are being invaded. She states that:

According to the Department of Homeland Security's 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Studies, from the Office of Immigration Statistics, federal law enforcement agencies detained 791,568 deportable aliens in fiscal year 2008 – and 5,506 of them were from 14 "special-interest countries."

The State Department lists the following as "special-interest countries": Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

The following "special-interest countries" are listed as sponsors of terror: Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran.

The aliens were apprehended "at the borders of the United States, in the interior of the country and at designated sites outside of the United States." The 2008 yearbook lists 791,568 deportable aliens by country (Page 97). Some include:

Afghanistan: 29
Algeria: 41
Cuba: 3,896
Iran: 98
Iraq: 118
Lebanon: 188
Libya: 11
Nigeria: 299
Pakistan: 494
Saudi Arabia: 71
Somalia: 66
Sudan: 46
Syria: 71
Yemen: 78

According to the Government Accountability Office, "The Border Patrol reported that in fiscal year 2008, checkpoints encountered 530 aliens from special-interest countries."

These numbers came from an investigative report done by WSB-TV out of Atlanta. KHOU-TV out of Houston, Texas has reported that the Department of Homeland Security has tracked one Mohammed Ali into Mexico and expects him to enter the US through Texas and Houston. Ali is an al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden operative. They believe he has smuggled hundreds of Somali’s into the US for training and recruiting.

Even worse, according to the 2006 congressional report, federal law-enforcement agencies estimate that only 10 to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually caught – meaning an estimated 70 to 90 percent enter the U.S. undetected.

According to Lester Pierce, Justice of the Peace for North Mesa County, Arizona, Arizona has the highest incidence of illegal aliens crossing the border into the US. However, Texas, specifically the McAllen area, has more OTMs (Other Than Mexican) illegals from Homeland Security’s known terrorist countries than any other part of the nation. And as stated above, a lot of them are not coming here fleeing their home governments with peaceful intentions. Purely and simply, they are invading our country, and they mean to do us harm.

It is imperative that we complete the border fence. Surveillance cameras, barbed wire and unmanned bridges are not acceptable.

We have to close the border.

1. The federal government must be compelled to complete the border fence.
2. We must maintain security along the fence and especially at any points of access.
3. If necessary, the National Guard should be employed along unprotected areas until the fence can be finished.
4. Documents must be scrutinized to keep illegal aliens and terrorists out of our nation.

When any person is stopped for illegal activity, whether it is a traffic ticket or something more serious, they must be asked for identification, and that identification must be checked for authenticity.

1. If they have no identification they should be incarcerated until they can provide proper identification.
2. If they refuse to provide proper identification, they should be incarcerated in the state in which they were apprehended until their home country can be identified, and then they should be deported.
3. If they are found to be illegally in this country, they must be turned over to ICE for deportation or incarcerated if warrants have been issued for their arrest on any criminal or civil matter.
4. The federal government as well as all state and local governments must be required to act in this situation.

Our safety and wellbeing demands it.

Citizen 2010

2010 Federalist. No. 21, Budgets

2010 Federalist. No. 21, Budgets


BUDGETS

The Constitution does not require the federal government to create a budget for operations. That leaves all three branches, the Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary to set their own budgets. But only Congress can appropriate funds for the government. So they have to have some forecast to approve before they can levy and collect taxes. They have to know how much money they will need before they can levy and collect taxes. Maybe that was so clear that the founders did not feel that it needed mentioning. The Constitution did require the President to provide a State of the Union report from time to time. It has been practice for the President and the Judiciary to supply their budgets to Congress for their inclusion into the total budget for the whole country. At least it used to be. Congress has what is called a baseline budget. That allows each agency to take last year’s budget amount (all of which, they were sure to spend) and increase it by a fixed increase each year. This is ludicrous. It does not instill frugalness. It instills foolishness and lack of control.

In more recent years, as information has become more immediate and widespread, citizens have gotten better looks at the budget process. When budget issues caused our professional office holders concern, they found ways to hide it. One example is the Social Security Act (SSA), which was passed by Congress on August 14, 1935. Franklin Roosevelt championed the law into being with a promise of future payments to current workers once they retired. Pay a little now, and later when you are older and need medical care and some supplemental income, it will be there. Benefits were based on what you paid in. But what you paid in was never set aside for you except on a piece of paper. The money went directly into the General Fund. Roosevelt and the Congress had been running budget deficits for the last 3 years, and they needed new supplies of tax money; The Social Security Administration provided a source of income that would not need to be repaid for years. But Congress continued to show the SSA as a separate budget, even though the money was not there. In addition to providing a new tax revenue, it also sounded good. It made supplemental retirement benefits available for the elderly, weak or ill.

And then the program got worse. Before long we were covering survivors and dependents. We lowered the ages. We raised benefits. We started Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA’s) in 1975 that the Congress could rubber stamp and make themselves look good. But it broke the system, and today we have more people being paid than we have paying in. This and the billions of dollars of debt are the sure signs of disaster. But this is just Social Security. Here is a list of some more.

Combined Federal, State and Local Welfare Budget, 1992 (millions)

Medicaid $118,067

AFDC 24,923

Food Stamps 24,918

Supplemental Security Income 22,774

Lower income housing asst. 12,307

Earned Income Tax Credit 9,553

Veterans medical care 7,838

Stafford loans 5,683

Social Services (Title 20) 5,419

Pell Grants 5,374

Low-rent public housing 5,008

General medical assistance 4,850

Foster Care 4,170

School Lunch 3,895

Pensions for needy veterans 3,667

General Assistance 3,340

Head Start 2,753

Food supplements,

Women, infants and children 2,600

Training for disadvantaged

youth and adults 1,744

Low-income energy assistance 1,594

Rural housing loans 1,468

Indian Health Services 1,431

Summer youth employment 1,183

Maternal and child health 1,059

JOBS and WIN 1,010

Job Corps 955

Child care block grant 825

School Breakfast 782

Child care for AFDC 755

Nutrition Program for Elderly 659

Housing interest reduction 652

Child and adult care food program 624

"At risk" child care 604

Source: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW and earlier reports.



And the problem is that they get bigger every year. The numbers above are from 1992. look left for today’s totals. Look at the rate of increase. Our Congressmen are asleep at the wheel. It has gotten to the point where controlling the discretionary budget is not adequate to control the total budget. The non-discretionary or entitlements budget is so large and growing so fast that it must be fixed or the government and the nation will go broke.



Medicare and Medicaid are both already broke. We are headed for a lower standard of living that many among us are not going to like. Our children will be horrified when they find out what we have done to them and their posterity. Here is another way to look at it. Only 18% is discretionary spending after the military budget.

In FEDERALIST No. 23, Alexander Hamilton wrote

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish.

In other words, government survives because it has money; money is the governments lifeblood, and for the federal government to thrive, it has to have a direct line to tax collection. If not, then one of two things will happen. Either the people will be plundered into poverty with usurious tax rates, or the government will perish by starvation. If the first option occurs, the second will surely follow. Spending more than the government has invites disaster, not maybe but when.

We have to stop the spending. It is not that hard. It just takes tough love.

1. Sunset all entitlement programs. Put an end date on them. Those that need to be continued, will be cut and reinstated at regular intervals. This leaves the opportunity for oversight at each renewal period.

2. Ban new entitlement programs.

3. Ban baseline budgeting and cut every federal agency budget by 5% plus inflation per year for the next 10 years.

4. Require Congress to prepare and live with balanced budgets each year.

5. Do not allow Congress to borrow funds from one agency to spend in another one. Every nickel of every fund is to be accounted for, and all surplus funds go back to the treasury.

6. Rebuild or eliminate the Social Security Fund.

7. Make war or natural disaster the only exceptions to this plan.

It will not be easy, but we can do it.

Citizen 2010

2010 Federalist. No. 14, Taxes

2010 Federalist. No. 14, Taxes


Following World War II and the Korean War, the United States had raised tax rates to an all time high. When John Kennedy entered office in 1961, the top tax rate was 91%. The lowest tax rate was 20%; the government only allowed the lowest earning Citizens to keep 80% of the money that they earned and only 9% for the highest wage earners. The federal government took the rest. How did this happen?

Article. 1. Section. 8. of the Constitution states:

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

In other words, Congress has the right to tax us, but it must be uniform throughout the United States. Everybody pays the same.

Article. 1. Section. 9. states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

In other words, all taxes were to be in proportion with the Census. Everybody was to be treated equally. Notice that all taxes were to be equal on all people. Everybody paid an equal share. Obviously that does not work. Some always have more making it equally true that some always have less.

FEDERALIST No. 10, James Madison wrote

The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

Clearly he says that it is tantamount to tax all with exact impartiality, everybody the same, but that we must use extreme caution, because taxation is always the favorite tool for ruling parties to punish their adversaries. Taking extra money from the weaker groups, allows the in-power party to pay less of their own money in taxes. Madison recognized the mantra of Progressivism early on. Whenever possible, I will do good with your money, but not mine. He is warning us to look after our checkbooks to protect ourselves from the ruling class. (See 2010 Federalist No. 3)

At this point, everybody paid the same share. Everybody held an equal stake in the operation of the federal government. Everybody was vested equally. This was changed by the 16th Amendment.

Amendment. XVI.

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

After February 3, 1913, Congress had the power to tax incomes without relation to the Census and without regard to any apportionment between States. Forget that equal investiture! Now Congress has the ability to discriminate between classes to tax some people and not others. Granted that if they taxed all income the same, that might be fair, but they do not do that. James Madison’s fears in Federalist No. 10 just came true. People who worked hard were punished. People who did not work were rewarded. The goal was to tax the rich. Wealth redistribution had begun.

Following in John Kennedy’s footsteps, Ronald Reagan managed to bring large reductions in the tax rates. This also leveled the playing field somewhat. More money was left with the earners who spent it more freely. More money was circulated, and incomes for everybody rose. But while Reagan’s tax cuts were in effect, the Congress continued to raise spending. The government had more income but much more outgo. Deficits grew. Soon the Congress was raising the tax rates again. Both George H. Bush and Bill Clinton agreed to historic increases in tax rates. George W. Bush managed to pass cuts, but they were temporary, and Obama and the current Congress intend to let them expire. Rates are going up, way up.

The problem with tax increases, is that the American public cannot keep paying higher taxes. There is a limit. That leaves cutting spending. Cutting spending is the better choice since it would also drive job creation. While doing this, we need to achieve some fairness in taxation while not punishing the earners at the expense of jobs. The income tax plan is unfair. The top 1% of earners pay 39% of all taxes, the top 25% pay 86%, the top 50% pay 97%.

One solution would be a national sales tax in place of an income tax, revenues would be distributed throughout our economy based on what people choose to spend. Those spending more would pay more, but everybody pays the same rate. Now everybody is invested again, just like the Constitution envisioned originally.

This has several other benefits.

1. Nearly every state has a sales tax. They all have a collection system set up to collect it.

2. The Internal Revenue Service would not be needed other than those few personnel who would monitor the states collections.

3. The tax rules and regulations would be outdated and useless. The agency itself would be redundant.

4. Revenues would come in a steady stream each month as they are collected rather than once a year on April 15th.

5. Savings and preparations for retirement would not be taxed.

6. Each individual would be able to choose his tax rate by what assets he purchases.

Let the States collect the sales tax for the country. Eliminate the entire tax bureaucracy, make collections easier, fairer, quick and continuous. Imagine the savings this would bring immediately.
Citizen 2010

2010 Federalist. No. 13, States’ Rights

2010 Federalist. No. 13, States’ Rights


Article. 1., Section. 3. of the Constitution establishes how the Senate is to be established and chosen. There are several things very important here.

1. Each State gets 2, and they were to be chosen by the legislature of each state, not directly elected by the people.
2. They are elected for 6 years. One-third of the Senate is elected each 2 years causing the terms of all the Senate to be overlapping. If vacancies happen, the governor of the state shall appoint an interim Senator until the legislature convenes and can elect a replacement.
3. The Vice-President of the United States is the President of the Senate, but he cannot vote unless there is a deadlock because of a tie vote.
4. No politcal party was mentioned. No retirement benefits were mentioned.

Secton. 7. establises that all bills raising Revenue shall originate in the House.

Section. 8. lists the things that Congress has the power to do.

Section. 9. lists all the things Congress cannot do.

Section. 10. lists all the things States cannot do.

The first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights. They list the rights, those things handed down from God, not created by government or handed down from government, directly to the people and the states. These rights are not to be violated by the federal government. All ten were considered and ratified together as a single document. They form the basic set of personal rights that are not to be denied citizens under any circumstances.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, those rights listed here may not be the only rights and just because they are not listed here, does not mean they are not present or can be usurped by the federal government.

Amendment X

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.

In other words, if the power to do something was not spelled out in the Constitution as belonging to the United States, and not prohibited by the Constitution to the individual States, they are reserved for the States or to the people. The United States has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution, no others. In all other circumstances, the States or the People are supreme. This is the paragraph that establishes States’ Rights. Notice that the default is to the States, not to the federal government.

The Constitution establishes Congress first, before the Executive or Judicial branch. It does this because it intends for Congress to be the most important of all three branches and for a very good reason. Congress is responsible directly to the people and the states. And the authority of the people and the States are to be protected. Remember the Preamble and We the People.

Why are States’ rights important? Why do they need to be protected? In Federalist. No. 45, James Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

But since that writing, things have changed. Notice that the Senate was to be elected by the State Legislatures, not directly by the people. The 17th Amendment changed that.

17th Amendment

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Some reasons why it passed were listed as an attempt to get the government closer to the people, some consecutive state legislatures sent different Senators to Congress and the local elections were questionable due to bribery and corruption. It created some immediate problems. The candidates now had hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents, campaign finances became an issue and larger staffs were needed both at home and in Washington.

Today, States’ Rights and the loss of status of States to the federal government is a common discussion point because it is a huge problem. The federal govenrment has found a new way to make themselves heroes while leaving all the onorous tasks of collecting taxes and enforcing unpopular laws to the States. This is called Unfunded Mandates. They Mandate that States and other local govenments like school districts and Cities do something, but they leave it to the States to set up the bureaucracies, implement the laws, and pay for the whole mess. They do this under the commerce clause in Article. 1. Section. 8. of the Constitution. See the partial list below as of 2004 totaling nearly $30 billion dollars. It is much worse today. From the Free Library:

THE 8 WORST OFFENDERS

Minimum

FY 2004 Gap (in millions)

Individuals with Disabilities $10,087

Education Act (IDEA)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 9,600

State Drug Costs for 6,000

Dual-Eligibles

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 2,400

Environment 1,000

State Criminal Alien 350

Assistance Program (SCAAP)

Food Stamps 197

Transportation Sanctions 19


Total $29,303

Source: www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/pr040310.htm

THE COST TO THE STATES OF SELECTED * UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES

State Total State Gap (FY 2004 in millions)

Alabama $359

Alaska 69

Arizona 332

Arkansas 219

California 3,160

Colorado 302

Connecticut 309

Delaware 72

D.C. 62

Florida 1,425

Georgia 650

Hawaii 82

Idaho 91

Illinois 1,040

Indiana 480

Iowa 212

Kansas 211

Kentucky 395

Louisiana 421

Maine 125

Maryland 396

Massachusetts 666

Michigan 812

Minnesota 403

Mississippi 282

Missouri 522

Montana 75

Nebraska 141

Nevada 123

New Hampshire 98

New Jersey 743

New Mexico 167

New York 2,191

North Carolina 687

North Dakota 60

Ohio 927

Oklahoma 267

Oregon 273

Pennsylvania 992

Rhode Island 107

South Carolina 344

South Dakota 67

Tennessee 433

Texas 1,830

Utah 152

Vermont 72

Virginia 526

Washington 456

West Virginia 158

Wisconsin 424

Wyoming 57

Total $24,400

* Does not include mandates in environmental programs, SCAAP and some programs authorized in the NCLB Act.

Source: Federal Funds Information for States and the National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, D.C., March 2004.

Additionally, today, California, Michigan, Ohio and New York are on the verge of bankruptcy, because they have not been frugal or even half smart about how they spend their tax money. When this happens, it will be left to the other States to bail them out. How is this fair or reasonable to those who have not been so lavish with other people’s money? How does this happen? Who in the federal government protects the States? What happened to States’ Rights? Allowing the Senate to be elected directly by the people killed States’ rights. As James Madison stated in Federalist 39,

The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL.

Then along came the 17th Amendment, and ever since, States’ Rights have been on the decline. Why is simple. There is no body in the Congress today to protect the states from the federal government. By removing the senators from the oversight by the legislatures, the guardians of States’ Rights were sent home – for good. Who in his right mind, having a large treasure, would summarily dismiss his guards leaving the treasure to be pilfered? The American people did on April 8, 1913. It is easy to understand why the problems listed above seemed insurmountable in 1912. But it is just as easy today to see why they are now easy to control. Open and instant communication is the norm today. If the 17th Amendment were repealed, we would automatically have a complete House of Congress, the Senate, as champions of States’ Rights. There would be no unfunded mandates. We would also fix the other changes mentioned in the excerpt above. Senators would no longer have to cater to hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals with all the emcumbent needs and potential corruption for campaign funds and costs of staffs. Lobbyists for the Senate would be in the various state legislatures, not in Washington, D.C. Senators would be calling home to get direction on votes, not relying on documents prepared by lawyers, lobbyists and staff.

The Senate was to protect the States from the federal government. But we changed that, and today the states have no protective body. The 17th Amendment should be overturned and the election of Senators should be returned to the respective legislatures.

Citizen 2010

2010 Federalist. No. 12, Professional Office Holders

2010 Federalist. No. 12, Professional Office Holders


Article. 1. of the Constitution establishes the three branches of government. Section. 1. establishes Congress. It is first because it is most important among the 3. It is divided into 2 parts, the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are to be equal in the enactment of laws, but different in other aspects.

Section. 2. establishes how the House of Representatives is to be established and chosen. There are several things very important here.

1. The entire body is to be chosen every two years. They are to be elected from the states in which they reside by the citizens within their respective districts. Terms are relatively short. But that also means that they must remain responsible to the people that they represent lest they be replaced. This is the original form of term limits.
2. The House of Representatives was designed to be the largest of all the branches of government. This is because they directly represent each division or district within their state. They were apportioned based on the population of the country and their state. They are the one group of government who are directly responsible to the people they represent. When vacancies occurr, new elections are to be held so that the Representative remains loyal to his constituency.
3. No politcal party was mentioned. No retirement benefits were mentioned.

Section. 3. establishes how the Senate is to be established and chosen. There are several things very important here.

1. Each State gets 2, and they were to be chosen by the legislature of each state, not directly elected by the people.
2. They are elected for 6 years. One-third of the Senate is elected each 2 years causing the terms of all the Senate to be overlapping. If vacancies happen, the governor of the state shall appoint an interim Senator until the legislature convenes and can elect a replacement.
3. The Vice-President of the United States is the President of the Senate, but he cannot vote unless there is a deadlock because of a tie vote.
4. No politcal party was mentioned. No retirement benefits were mentioned.

Section. 4. establishes that the elections are to take place in the states, and that Congress is to meet at least once a year. Notice that it does not say continuously, but at least once a year. Congress was not meant to be a full time job.

Section. 5. states that each House is to judge their own elections, set their own rules, judge members’ qualifications and keep journals. It also says they have to meet at the same time so that business will be done expeditiously.

The Constitution establishes Congress first, before the Executive or Judicial branch. It does this because it intends for Congress to be the most important of all three branches and for a very good reason. Congress is responsible directly to the people and the states. And the authority of the people and of the States are to be protected. Remember the Preamble and “We the People”.

Notice that the Senate was to be elected by the State Legislatures, not directly by the people. The 17th Amendment changed that.

17th Amendment

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The two main political parties, the republicans and democrats dominate our election process. The Constitution did not arrange that. Money did. Money also made our Congressional offices desireable to “professional” Congressmen and Senators. That is not what the founders had in mind. FEDERALIST No. 53. states

No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it. The period of service, ought, therefore, in all such cases, to bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service. The period of legislative service established in most of the States for the more numerous branch is, as we have seen, one year. The question then may be put into this simple form: does the period of two years bear no greater proportion to the knowledge requisite for federal legislation than one year does to the knowledge requisite for State legislation? The very statement of the question, in this form, suggests the answer that ought to be given to it.

I would suggest that Publius is more correct than most members of Congress would like to admit. If one has become a professional Congressman, how does he become knowledgable of the subjects on which he is to legislate? The argument against this two year term was for a shorter term to further restrict professional office holders and to allow more citizens to participate.

Another problem is that once the Congressman becomes a professional office holder, he prioritizes incorrectly. First is keeping his job, second is garnering power within Congress, third is what he can do to look good for reelection or what is best to make him look good and stately to his constituents. All three of these items are about government and power, and they lead to the government becoming more powerful. The more powerful they become, the more things they have to oversee leading to them becoming more ingrained in our every day lives. Somewhere along the way, they forget that their first priority is to protect us from the government. In the bigger scheme of things, the government does not help people. It harms them. It takes their hard earned money. It continually increases the number of government jobs through ever growing bureaucracies, jobs that do not create wealth, but rather destruct it. Ronald Reagan once said that the worst thing you could hear was someone knocking on your door and announcing that they are from the government and there to help you. Government is basically bad, taking our treasures and diminishing our personal wealth. Some of it is necessary, but it must be held to the bare minimum. That is why our founders made it so hard to get a law passed, and it is why they set up the House of Representatives to be directly elected by the people with a two year term so that they had to seek office regularly answering to the people in their districts.

The first job of the House of Representatives is to protect the people from the federal government, not the other way around. That means shrinking government, cutting government jobs, reducing bureaucracies and getting the goernment out of our every day lives. This is contrary to what a professional office holder wants to do. It runs contrary to his quest for power within his chosen profession. We elect them. But we cannot oversee them except to express our unhappiness with their actions, and we cannot bring them home until election time. Once they become professional office holders, their loyalty lies with the office or government, not the populace that they represent. Lately there has been much talk about term limits and how to better control the professional office holders. How do we get back to a citizen Congress?

The issue has become much more serious now that Congress has become a home for professional office holders. Originally, Congressmen received $6.00 per day. Today they get $174,000 per year. The Speaker receives $223,500 and the Majority and Minority Leaders receive $193,400. They set their own salaries. There are expenses that are covered as well as all of their health care. They get Social Security benefits, and they can pay into the Federal Employees Retirement System. That will allow them to receive up to 80% of their 3 highest years of salary after 20 years of service. This counts military service, too, before they ever held an office in the government.

Congressmen are allowed over $2,000,000 annually for staff and office expenses. Additionally, they receive expenses for domestic travel, stationary, newsletters, overseas telephones, foreign travel, postage, etc. Their outside employment is limited to 15% of their salary, but they cannot receive compensation for employment in real estate, insurance sales, the practice of law, medical practice, or service as an officer or board member.

One path toward correcting this flaw would be to stop the retirement benefits, cut the expenses and limit their pay. We need a path that returns the Congress to a part time job. By reducing their influence on our lives and returning to part time, the amount of money will shrink as will the amount of money flowing through the political parties. This will lead to less influence by the parties. A good plan, one that would ensure term limits would be to:

1. Reduce Congressional pay to a per diem of something like $1,500 or even $3,000 per day for each day that they are present while the Congress is in session. This includes all expenses; no other amount is to be paid. Reduce their office space. They will not need as many people in Washington once they are part timers.

2. Allow Congressmen to continue in their respective careers while serving in Congress. When Congress is not in session, they are free to engage in whatever business they wish for whatever amount of earnings to which they are entitled. One would assume that the highest proficiency of any individual is in his chosen and professional career. (See FEDERALIST No. 53 above) That should properly be the drive that causes him to aspire to a Congressional position in the first place. That is where his requisite knowledge for doing his job originates. He should be allowed to pursue that and hone it for whatever benefit it will provide him and the United States of America as a Congressman.

3. Allow no retirement benefits from the federal government. This will encourage all Congressmen to return to private enterprises rather than government service. Even if the Congressman has a strong desire to serve, his tenure will not be permanent.



Citizen 2010