Resolved: The Federal Government is "Too Big to Fail".

The Federal Government has a $16 trillion debt and it is still growing. If we don't get this problem under control soon (and I'm not hopeful that we will), we are heading for higher interest rates, lost jobs, diminished wealth and possible civil unrest.

Our government in Washington bailed out large banks and businesses that were "too big to fail". Who will bail out the government? For surely, we cannot allow an entity that has become so big that it's failure would be disastrous for each one of us. Perhaps we should consider that such a government is just too damn big.

The Constitution calls for a government that is limited with powers diffused not only by a system of checks and balances but also by its federalist nature. The advantage of such constraints are not only beneficial to a free society and effective governance but also to ameliorate damages possible by the failure of a single governing entity. For example, the effects of a single state going bankrupt are much less than that of a large unitary government.

As the old saying says: we have met the enemy and it is us. We must get our spending under control. To those who say that we must raise taxes to balance the budget, I would ask how high do they think taxes should be? My next question would be to ask if they understood how a free enterprise system really works? For it is not government spending that drives the economy but the diverse interaction of many in a free exchange of goods and services.

Cutting spending (and decreasing the size of government) makes sense not only in lowering the debt but in other ways as well. For example, it is often said in reference to federal laws and regulations that "one size does not fit all". We live in a diverse country with different cultures, economies, faiths etc.
A law that may be apropos for New York may not be for Montana. Federal programs (such as gun laws) may have public acceptance in some states but not in others. For these reasons, some issues may best be left to the states. An added benefit is that our national government can't seem to resolve them anyway.

Which leads to my final point. Why is the Federal Government so dysfunctional? We might be able to lessen this dysfunction by implementing various changes such as term limits, an amendment to require balanced budgets, tax code revisions etc. But assuming they would be enacted (unlikely) would their passage change anything? Would we still have an atmosphere of acrimony and distrust? And attitudes of disrespect if not outright disdain for the other side.

In the past, there have been sufficient reasons to struggle for important programs such as civil rights. There will continue to be important issues to face the Nation in the future. We need to get beyond those of the past and learn how to resolve the ones remaining and to come. If we can't trust one another and not respect other opinions, we are doomed to failure. For love of Country and our constitutional form of government, it is time for constructive debate and resolution of our problems.

Two Very Different Views of Government

President Obama has one view of government. Senator Marco Rubio and Dr. Ben Carson have another.

In his State of the Union message last week, the President outlined his proposals to fix the economy, create jobs, encourage more growth and to provide for every conceivable problem that the nation faces. Our purpose is not to comment on his specific policies but to question his approach to governing.

President Obama is apparently of the view that the Federal Government should be involved in every phase of our lives. From birth to adolescence and to our working and senior years, the government "would be there" if the President had his way.

In our last post, we described the role of the Federal Government as limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and granted to it by the people. Our founding fathers would be rather bewildered if they could witness the present scope of our government and how the President would like to expand it even further. They may even ponder as to why there is little attention given our large national debt and the absence of a formal budget both of which should be legitimate concerns of Washington DC.

The President's policies relying on unprecedented expenditures to improve the economy have not worked and may have diminished the general welfare, not improved it. We cannot remain on this path without significant degradation of our standard of living and our role in a world that is increasingly interdependent. It is we the people that should initiate the necessary changes by choosing leaders who represent us, not established power, just as it is intended in the Constitution.

Senator Rubio's background as the son of Cuban immigrants is well known. In his response to President Obama's State of the Union's speech, he emphasized the blessings of America where all, including immigrants, had a chance to improve their lot. That result is possible because our country is based on individual freedom and the opportunity to advance through hard work, determination and individual merit.

Dr. Ben Carson was raised by a single mother in Detroit. Despite significant hardship and with his mother's unrelenting support and guidance plus his own hard work and determination, he is now director of pediatric neurosurgery at John Hopkins. In a speech at the White House prayer breakfast recently, he talked of the need for a tax system that doesn't seek to "hurt" those who are successful. Their money could be better used "---building our infrastructure and creating jobs".  On health care, he favors the use of "health savings accounts" where individuals are in charge of their own health care     "---instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy".

Many of us, like Senator Rubio and Dr. Carson, are not children of privilege but children of opportunity. We know the promise of America. We celebrate success; we don't envy it. We believe in individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness granted by our Creator. We believe that government should serve the people and not the people serve the government.

Our governing principles should be based on the Constitution and the laws duly enacted under it. Results are important but it is process that defines us. The process of governing should be based on the limited authority granted to government by the people under the Constitution. It should not be based on capricious and arbitrary dictates of a governing elite. For we, and our leaders, live in a country of laws and not of men. And it is more honorable to be honest than to be clever.

Have We Lost Our Way?

All of us have our individual opinions and values. What is true now was also true during our nation's early history. Each of the American colonies was founded by persons of differing backgrounds, principles and aspirations. In this new land, they had the opportunity to establish a new way of life. It is also where a new concept of government would be born.

The separate and distinct colonies were brought together by their united opposition to a despotic monarch ruling from afar. They won that fight. But after it was over, they essentially remained independent of each other. They ultimately realized that they needed to act in concert in matters where they had mutual interests such as defense, trade and currency.

Because they had recently won their hard earned independence from an authoritarian government, they were not disposed to establish another. The result of these opposing sentiments is our Constitution. It is  a constitution that grants limited and enumerated powers to the national government and states explicitly that powers not granted are reserved to the states or to the people.

The Constitution also provides for elected representatives to make laws. This republic form of government has obvious practical advantages. But along with the constitutional requirements for a division of powers, checks and balances, periodic but staggered elections and a federalist system this republic form is (or should be) more conducive to reasoned deliberations, apart from the daily passions of fleeting public opinion.

In such a system of government of various constituencies, compromise is key to effective governance.

Which leads us to our time. We seldom hear much about our government as a Republic, with limited, enumerated powers, of federalism and the importance of states' role or even of individual sovereignty and freedom granted to us by our Creator (and not the government).

Our body politic has degenerated into political theater, much of which is performed in the mass media. Consider a system where:

     *Reasoned debate is often drowned out by emotional comments aided and abetted by the media and unprincipled politicians.

     *Elected officials don't make the hard decisions but follow the poll numbers.

     *Leaders don't lead but pander and bloviate.

     *Political dialog is reduced to personal attack, ridicule and innuendo.

     *Special interests have an inordinate influence on legislation.

     *The Constitution and the rule of law is circumvented for political expediency.

The root cause of this condition has been often described as an attitude among too many of us as selfishness, of what's in it for me and a corresponding disregard of what's in the national interest.

Demands that each of us are entitled to what we want, to consistently demand "our way or the highway" can only lead to a dysfunctional society and government. And ultimately chaos. To maintain a civil and just society, we should respect the opinions of others and we must also be ready to compromise when it is necessary for the common good.

At the same time, we should be guided by the principles of the Constitution and the laws duly enacted under its provisions.