Dear Mr. President and Members of the House and Senate;

Please explain this to me one more time. Here is what you just appropriated and spent in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which you have euphemistically called the stimulus bill. This is a breakdown of the hundreds of billions of dollars that you plan to tax Americans to pay for projects that you cannot constitutionally involve yourselves directly.

Now here are the enumered powers under the US Constitution. I am having considerable difficulty understanding where in the list you believe you have a right to tax me, except for the Armed Forces and maybe a little art and science. Yes, I know, the courts have allowed it, but that does not excuse your involvement or the state legislatures willingness to accept it. Please help me to understand why you believe you have a right under the constitution to tax the people to pay for your ill conceived plan.

Constitutional Powers of Governement

Article 1.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.

Article 2.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


Amendment IX

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

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.

Idealism versus Pragmatism

Recently I attended a political party fundraiser dinner at which all the candidates for governor spoke. Before the speeches began, I had the occasion to speak twice with the state’s current Lieutenant Governor who was one of the candidates. I quizzed him for perhaps 15 minutes on his positions on a number of issues, particular those that oppose the positions of the current governor. I wanted to try to understand why he believed the Governor was wrong and how he reconciled his positions with the constitutional conflicts they seem to imply. He said he disagreed with the federal spending, but he was a pragmatist and saw no alternative. He felt that we were only one state and that if we didn’t take it, others would. I also questioned his support of politicians who had no credentials to hold the offices they sought. His reply was that the reason it was hard to find good candidates was the low pay. When I pointed out some of the reasons Benjamin Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and others were so opposed to rewarding public office with high pay, he retorted that we were living in another time.

While I understand and can even appreciate why he felt these things, I’m not sure I will ever be able to agree. Clearly idealism alone will not solve the problems the country faces, but if we lose our ideals in the process of accepting the pragmatic views of others, then what are we? There is an obvious place and need for pragmatism, but when it subjugates our idealism we lose some of ourselves.

The more I study history, the more I find that times have not changed as much as many believe. Certainly our technology has advanced dramatically, but the behavior of people has changed little over the centuries. Cicero wrote about the very things that we are dealing with today. He wasn’t being prophetic; he was simply observing and commenting on the nature of mankind.

The recent actions of Congress challenge our entire belief system. The Constitution set out an amazing set of guidelines for us and left us with an enormous volume of explanations for their reasoning. Yet the Constitution alone has not prevented others from usurping power from the people through the courts. The judicial system has slowly chipped away at the meaning by declaring federal jurisdiction through its rulings. Those rulings have more force of law than the Constitution itself and are why there are such titanic struggles for control of the courts.

If we believe that the Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the federal government and if we believe that values and principles really matter, then we should stand up and defend those beliefs. The men and women that died defending our Constitutional rights certainly did. How can we so cavalierly give those values up under the guise of pragmatism? Is there nothing these people are willing to fight for in this country?

What can we do? We can loudly make our voices heard. We can stand on our principles. We can vote against all who do not defend our rights under the Constitution. We can insist on appointing only judges who will adhere to the original intent of the Constitution. We can tell all everywhere that we are tired of this intrusion and aren’t going to sit back idly and accept it. We can demand that our legislators pass legislation that begins to reverse this federal intrusion of our freedom. We can tell our state representatives to start standing up for the sovereignty of their state and the rights of its citizens. Even the courts listen when there is an overwhelming cry coming from the public. We must single out those who betray our freedom and ensure they hold no public office. These are but a few and there is a great deal more we can do. However, the one thing we must not do is to allow pragmatism to replace our idealism.

Why Credentials Matter

It is difficult to know what is really going on in our federal government these days or to know what the extent of their involvement is in the private businesses to which that have loaned money. Why they have become the nation’s banker is not entirely clear either, but now that they have decided to do so, it is also unclear what the long term strategy is.

Recently, the Administration has proposed to establish pay guidelines for executives within the auto companies and financial institutions that have become their borrowers. They have either directly or indirectly helped to decide the changing of management and decide what products to offer to the public. In other words, they have taken on the role of the board of directors of these companies. That raises new questions about how business in general around the nation will be run. If the bankers are allowed to make the executive decisions of any company to which they loan money, what is the likely success of those businesses?

In a capitalist system, business must be able to survive or fail based on its ability to meet the demands of the market place. The ability of a business to meet those demands lies primarily in the skill, knowledge, and experience of its management. That management must understand the market in which they sell, the complexities of its own operations, and its capabilities to participate. Few lenders are qualified to make a company’s decisions and therefore do not participate directly on a company’s board. In the rare instances that they might, they occupy but one seat among many others. When that one seat becomes the only voice in the room, that business may find itself in great peril. If this is occurring with federal government involvement in the management of private businesses, it would be hard to understand why any federal bureaucrat would deem themselves more qualified to make decisions than those who manage day to day operations.

I have long been critical of the compensation structures of many corporations. I’ve felt that many senior level executive pay plans have been excessive in terms of the kind of compensation they receive. However, these matters must be decided by board members who are elected by the stockholders. Stockholders also decide through their willingness to purchase stock. The market place decides through their willingness to pay the price of a product. Finally, like all jobs, it is decided by the availability and competition for the skills of those managers in the job market. Arbitrary limits on compensation do not work and upset the fundamental controls of competition. It would be far wiser to look at how executives are compensated rather than in how much. My personal concern has been in the way executives are incented to perform. Many CEOs and top level executives receive very large numbers of stock options in addition to their salaries and bonuses. Too often, the value of these options has considerably exceeded all other compensation combined. The intent is to incent management to protect stock value for the stockholders and theoretically to increase the profits of the corporation. The argument is that the higher the profits, the stock price will follow. The problem becomes that when a manager’s financial goal is based primarily on stock price, the decision paradigm dramatically shifts from financial growth to profit maximization. To increase profits it is unnecessary for a company to increase sales, revenue, or market share. One simply has to reduce costs proportionally against existing available revenue. Revenue can actually go down, but as long as costs are cut proportionally, a business can continue to show an increase in profits. This has been happening within many American companies as executives try to maximize profits and increase the price of their stock and personal options. This is what needs to be reevaluated, not how much an executive makes.

Before you invite your banker into the boardroom, it would be my opinion that you should be very certain of their credentials for making operational decisions. I would suggest the same consideration when voters go to the polls to elect those who are going to run their federal business.

The Role of Religion in Government

Because the issue has come up numerous times recently and because of the frequent misreporting of the facts in the general media, I decided to go back and do a little research on the subject of the part religion played in the formation of our Constitution. While I took several courses in college that dealt with this subject, I decided I could use a little memory refreshing. I’ve repeatedly heard politicians, secularists, and various people generally opposed to religion in government refer to the practice of religion within government as though it was prohibited or illegal. This is a common tactic by many who wish to impose their views. They make claims without proof. They make the claim and demand that they be disproved, when in fact they bear the burden of proof themselves. However, to simplify this for some, I’ve decided it is time to restate the facts and they are all self provable. One only has to take the time to read a few documents for themselves.

Let me start by pointing out that there has never been any prohibition of religion in American government, nor is that implied in the principle of separation of church and state. That principle is not in the Constitution and evolved over time as a legal idea to ensure that no one religion would ever become a state sponsored religion like that which had been created in England. The colonists were fleeing religious persecution, were very strong in their religious Christian beliefs, and were determined to protect them, not prohibit their practice anywhere. Virtually all public meetings were opened and closed with prayer. Religion and moral values were taught in the schools of many states and were considered mandatory for the right upbringing of the young. If you read the Northwest Ordinance, you will find that it was required in the schools of the new territories. The Christian Bible itself was often used as a reader for children and most colonists, as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, were more knowledgeable of the verses than those in Europe. However, one of the concerns that Jefferson noted was that it was important not to allow any religious teaching which was not common to the others. Over time the courts would gradually whittle away at that to mean virtually anything and is why we find our Constitutional right to the free practice and expression of religion being muffled by extreme groups.

Our country was founded on Christian Judeo principles, not any other major religion. In their zeal to protect their right to practice it, they recognized that they must also allow others not to believe. That provision of fairness seems to have gone strangely against them. Those that do not believe and remain a minority want to insist that those who do believe should have no right to their own expressions of their faith. That was clearly not intended, is specifically protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, and was exercised in all government daily activities. I would encourage everyone to read the Constitution periodically and become familiar with the language. In recent years, some in the Federal Government have slowly been reaching beyond any reasonable interpretation of Section 8 of the Constitution. The powers of Congress are specifically enumerated in that section and it would have been hard for the framers to imagine how Congress has so over reached its Constitutional authority. While scholars can debate this into the small hours of the night, any rational thinking person can read that section, easily understand the wording, and then form their own conclusions. However, the importance of pointing out Section 8 is that the country was established as a Republic and as one, the central government was to have very limited, specifically enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the individual states. This was in direct and specific opposition to the governments of Europe. Franklin constantly warned of people’s tendency to return to European authoritarian law.

Section 8 of the Constitution is critical to all Constitutional matters because it defines where the authority of the governments lies. The central federal government only has certain defined powers and all others are reserved to the states. In matters of religion, the First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It should be noted that the Constitution does not say that the Congress nor the states shall make no law. It only limits Congress. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, there were seven states that had established state religions. Jefferson mentioned this point several times in his writings and even in his 2nd inaugural address. He pointed out that the subject of religion within the states was entirely within the jurisdiction of the individual states, not the federal government.

Americans need to stop listening to the spinmiesters of television and magazines and do a little more reading of these documents including the Declaration of Independence which also gives homage to God. If people were to try to set aside their own biases for even a few moments to consider the facts instead of the spin, we might have a more democratic society. Forget all the politicians, forget the columnists and talking heads and read the actual words of those who risked their lives so that we might live in freedom. Don’t be so quick to be willing to give away our personal freedoms to government bureaucrats. The Federalist Papers are filled with the warnings of what could happen and we are seeing those things today. The documents I mention above are but a start, but they are compelling in their clarity of purpose. Once you read them, it is clear that Congress, some members of the courts and others have gone far astray of the framer’s original intent and specific wording of the law of our land. If we do not stand vigilantly strong against these constant attacks on our individual liberties, we will one day awaken to find that they have been taken from us.

Understanding the Numbers

The internet has been full of ideas from citizens about how the government might create new jobs and help to stimulate the economy. One goes something like this:
The federal government should offer citizens of the United States their own bailout package. Each person over the age of 50 would be given $500,000 with the stipulation that they must retire and buy a new car. This would free up millions of jobs for younger workers, while stimulating the auto industry.

While this idea may be amusing, some actually like the idea. The problem comes when you analyze the numbers. It also demonstrates how difficult it is for many to grasp the enormity of the numbers that Congress is so freely bandying about these days. I’d like to demonstrate part of this.

Currently more than eighty million (80,000,000) Americans are age 50 or older. Forget for a moment that many are already retired, but assuming we gave each $500,000, that would total forty trillion dollars ($40,000,000,000), or far more than the entire gross domestic product (GDP) which is currently only about fourteen trillion dollars ($14,000,000,000,000)per year. The GDP is the total value of the nations entire output. The federal government’s total tax collections, which are down from last year, will be around $2.2 trillion. The budget deficit, which is the amount we have over spent our income, already this year is expected to be about $1.2 trillion. We will have to borrow money again to pay for our shopping spree and that loan added to our already bulging credit card will total somewhere around $11.3 trillion. That is an amount approaching the nations entire output.

How do we get a handle on comprehending these enormous sums? It is not easy and the average person has great difficulty in trying to get their heads around it. Clearly many in Congress have not a clue. Let’s look at this a different way. Let us start with a billion. How big is that? Let us also say we take our average billionaire and tax him a billion dollars. How long would it take him to count his money out? If our billionaire started laying down his tax dollars at one dollar per second, every hour of the day, it would take him more than 31 years just to count out the money for that one tax year. That would be without interest and penalties since it took him so long to pay. If we were to ask that same billionaire to pay a trillion dollars, it would take him and his ancestors until the year 33,719AD to count out the money. With a modest interest of let’s say 5%, his ancestors would be counting until the end of time.

Somehow, we need to get people to understand both the size and the impacts of these government spending decisions. One of the reasons that it has gotten so far out of control is that so few understand how big they are and how destructive they are becoming to our economy. If the federal government was a private business, they would have long ago filed for bankruptcy. These practices cannot continue without a complete collapse of the monetary system. I urge all to call their congressman and plead with them to stop this runaway spending before it is too late. We all owe that to our own families.

California's Financial Suicide Mission

While there is no certainty that the federal government will involve itself in the financial disaster that California politicians have created, given the rest of the financially insane and irresponsible behavior of Congress and the Administration, it would not surprise me at all if they did. What has happened to California is just the predictable result of trying to create socialistic programs without regard for how to pay for them. Now that they have run up enormous deficits in the billions of dollars, they want the rest of the country to help them pay for it. Further, this financial bailout would only address the current deficit and would not deal with the problem that is creating the deficit in the first place.

This scenario becomes even more bizarre since they are talking about asking the federal government for money that the Federal Treasury doesn’t have either. Californians want the federal administration to borrow more money to pay for their debt because California can’t get the loan on their own. The federal government is already borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars just to pay the interest on their own current debt and now some in Congress are considering borrowing even more to pay for debts of one of the sovereign states. That would mean that all of us, in the other independent states, would have to be taxed to pay for those debts run up by the people of another state while receiving nothing for it. This is so outrageous, crazy, and beyond any logical economic explanation that it is hard to conceive that some are seriously considering it.

People ought to watch the California situation closely, because it is a wonderful model for all the things that go wrong with socialistic programs and why they don’t work. When people’s compassion leads them to spend everyone else’s money on benefits for which they are unwilling to be taxed, the bill must come due at some point. The longer this imbalance is prolonged, the more magnified the problem becomes. There is only one solution to the problem. Government must stop spending. Taxing more won’t solve the problem either, because when taxes become excessive both business and citizens will leave the state. This has happened in a number of states over the last few decades. It has even happened to entire countries.

Having said all of that, why then does California and the Federal Government continue down this crazy path? You can form your own conclusions, but all signs seem to point to the lust for political power and control. Governments always seem to suffer from this disease. The only solution is for the citizens to take that power back, remove those who are trying to steal power from the individuals, and vote for representatives that support their beliefs in limited government, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice. We will see if that message begins to sink in before the 2010 elections. Those individuals and states who are unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own lives must suffer the consequences.

The Attack on the Constitution and Freedom

Today’s Americans must decide whether they want to live as free men and women or change the US Constitution. I would argue that socialism, which seeks a communist ideal, is totally denied under our Constitution and can never be introduced without violation of the fundamental principles dictated by the Republican form of government for which it is written. In a socialist system, the government makes the decisions for the individual. Because the objective of socialism is to provide equally for all individuals, it must maintain control. Whether the individual agrees with the level or kind of service the government provides, does not matter. The individual does not have a direct voice in any of the decisions made. History proves that a government that requires control will take it and once the citizens no longer have a say, those in control will eventually take over all decisions. The system will feed itself.

Under Article 1, Section 8 of our current constitution, the federal government is limited to very specific activities. These enumerated powers are in everyday language and easily understood. The first ten amendments enumerate the rights and guaranteed protections of the people. The 9th Amendment also prevents the government from using its enumerated powers from infringing on those of the people. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government shall remain with the states and the people. It is hard to understand how Congress and the Executive Branch have reached so far beyond their intended authority. People should read the Constitution periodically to familiarize themselves with their own rights. They might be more likely to resist government’s attempts to interfere.

When we see government trying to nationalize or control private business, this is an infringement on our own freedom and rights. Socialism is a political system, not an economic system. Its goal is to achieve an economic system called communism. Capitalism is not a political system as some liberals try to portray it, but rather is an economic system and the opposite of communism. Capitalism demands freedom of the individual to make choices or it cannot survive.
The founding fathers were well schooled on the political ideologies of Europe. They were risking their own lives to establish a country that was free of the control of Kings and aristocratic governments. The freedoms they fought for were paid in blood and lives. Today we see people again playing with the notion of giving back that precious freedom of choice to a central government who they think will take care of them.

Most on the extreme left realize that Americans are patriotic people but with only a conceptual idea of freedom. However, they also know that many do not understand the difference between Socialism and a free Republic. They mask their language to avoid any terms which might frighten the public and through incremental introduction of government control, the government assumes control gradually and without public resistance. This chipping away at individual rights and the wording of the Constitution is their goal.

Only a handful of our elected officials of either party are fighting this erosion of individual rights. Unless people wake up to what is happening, they may soon find that they no longer have the right to resist. All of us should begin to demand that our state politicians start to fight back for states’ rights and to save the Republic. We must all fight back to save our freedom.

Welcome to Halley's American Views

Because I've had a number of my political collegues urge me to create a blog site to share my thoughts, I've somewhat reluctantly conceded and have created this site. I believe their thinking was that my articles might get wider distribution, while avoiding the occasional temptations of some who don't share these views to change them when forwarding the information. However, my greatest motivation is the hope that in some small way, I might stir people's ideas and thinking and motivate them to start to stand up for what they believe.

Thank you for joining me here.

John Halley