In this post from this past June, I enumerated 10 things I believe need to be fixed in the Constitution.
Since then, I've decided there should be an additional item regarding deficits and balanced budgets. But that's for another post.
Today, I want to comment on an aspect of my ninth item which I had heretofore not realized.
In the June post, I wrote,
"9. Novice politicians gaining entry to the Senate due to the amendment requiring direct election of this body intended to be more deliberative and experienced than the House."
All I really focused on, thanks to Wonderboy's misguided election last November, was making sure that Senators have more qualifications than just age and citizenship.
Watching Mary Landrieu's comic performance during the voting to bring the Senate health care bill to the floor gave me another insight.
One unintended consequence of the direct election of Senators was the removal of an important check in the Constitutional system. It wasn't between the branches, but between the federal government and the states.
I've never seen this expressed anywhere else, so I thought I'd offer some observations.
Prior to the amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, as I noted in this post from March, 2008, quoting the Senate's own website,
"Just reflecting on the original mechanism for Senate election, it's easy to see how differently Senators prior to 1913 would behave, as opposed to modern Senators. Senators chosen by their state's political party leaders would almost of necessity be committed to the welfare of their state over their own career. Because they didn't really 'run' for the office, fund-raising, politicking as it is currently understood, and the appeal to voters' baser motivations probably didn't occur as they do today.
I can imagine Senators of that day truly behaving as the Constitution's architects intended, worrying less about their seat than carefully addressing major issues to the benefit of the country and their state."
Indirectly-elected Senators were an intentional Constitutional check on federal power. State-level political parties would ensure that Senators didn't expect lifetime careers. Rather, they were beholden to the state party, which, by necessity, had to do a good job for the state's voters, or lose its control over the legislatures.
This carefully-calibrated bias for states rights in the Senate was torn away with the passage of the 17th amendment.
After some reflection, I think it's this aspect of the direct election of Senators that has been most damaging. Representatives are subject to recall every two years. Senators, by contrast, manage to go six years between elections. Without the pre-selection by their own parties, I believe they have become disconnected from their states, to the detriment of the nation.
No longer answering to their own parties, Senators today seem to be in business mostly for themselves. Mary Landrieu's deal with Harry Reid to get a $300M dispensation for Louisiana in the health care bill does, in one sense, reflect her working for her state's benefit. But, in a larger sense, she really did damage to the nation. With no need to explain the larger benefits of the bill to her state-level Democratic party, Landrieu basically bought her seat forward with that $300M.
If she were being nominated by her party, she probably wouldn't have been quite so mercenary with everyone's money.
I believe that indirectly-elected Senators had to assure their parties back in the home state that they were working for both the country's and the state's good. If the state party saw voters leaning one way on an issue, they could and probably did make clear to the Senator how s/he should vote, if s/he were to remain in the seat.
Not so anymore. Now, it's mostly a popularity contest, with Senators often feeling themselves above the state party apparatus, once elected.
Issues like tax levels and fiscal rectitude don't seem to matter to the Senate anymore. They avoid taking responsibility for excessive spending, buying votes with it.
But the Senators of old didn't need to do that, because their voters were the state party politicians in the legislatures.
It seems to me that this unintended consequence has had seriously bad long term consequences for our nation. A key states' rights linkage, the indirect election of Senators, was removed, implicitly handing much more power to the federal government, and insulating Senators from any real pressure from their own states' parties.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Now, More Inconvenient Climate Truths
Some embarrassing information- inconvenient truths, if you will- recently came to light. A Wall Street Journal piece provides some of the details.
Keith Johnson begins his article,
"The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications."
Oops! No politicization or fraudulent behavior here, eh? And what about all those liberals contending that "the debate is over?"
The article continues,
""This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical." "
Yeah, it ends faster when your side lies about the facts, doesn't it?
The Journal piece reports,
"In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday."
So, basically, these liberal global warming theorists have been at work for more than a decade lying, falsifying data, intimidating and foreclosing the publication of dissenters.
Not only does it seem that the debate on human sources of climate change isn't over. It appears that we can't even trust the data, since these emails provide evidence that it's been tainted by these biased researchers.
Keith Johnson begins his article,
"The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications."
Oops! No politicization or fraudulent behavior here, eh? And what about all those liberals contending that "the debate is over?"
The article continues,
""This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical." "
Yeah, it ends faster when your side lies about the facts, doesn't it?
The Journal piece reports,
"In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday."
So, basically, these liberal global warming theorists have been at work for more than a decade lying, falsifying data, intimidating and foreclosing the publication of dissenters.
Not only does it seem that the debate on human sources of climate change isn't over. It appears that we can't even trust the data, since these emails provide evidence that it's been tainted by these biased researchers.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
David Obey's Misplaced Priorities
It requires a special sort of arrogance to treat a shooting war as an inconvenient distraction from converting America into a totally socialist society.
That's the sort of arrogance displayed by Wisconsin Democrat and House member David Obey.
While griping about the cost of US military operations in Afghanistan, he proposed a "war surtax," but only on "the rich."
In an interview on ABC, Obey complained that Truman's Square Deal was ruined by the Korean War, Johnson's Great Society by that little distraction in Vietnam, and, now, on the brink of passing an unaffordable health care system redesign, fighting the War on Terror is proving, well, untimely.
So, despite having thrown fiscal caution to the wind with last year's TARP, this year's stimulus bill, cash for clunkers, several jobless benefits extensions, cap and trade legislation, and the incredibly expensive and unaffordable House health care bill, Obey chose an actually Constitutional governmental activity, providing for the common defense, to find fiscal probity.
Never mind borrowing for all those other socialistic programs which aren't Constitutionally sanctioned.
We only need to make people feel pain for actually defending the country from Muslim terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans.
This guy is some piece of work. With Representatives like him, no wonder Congress is held in such low esteem nationwide.
That's the sort of arrogance displayed by Wisconsin Democrat and House member David Obey.
While griping about the cost of US military operations in Afghanistan, he proposed a "war surtax," but only on "the rich."
In an interview on ABC, Obey complained that Truman's Square Deal was ruined by the Korean War, Johnson's Great Society by that little distraction in Vietnam, and, now, on the brink of passing an unaffordable health care system redesign, fighting the War on Terror is proving, well, untimely.
So, despite having thrown fiscal caution to the wind with last year's TARP, this year's stimulus bill, cash for clunkers, several jobless benefits extensions, cap and trade legislation, and the incredibly expensive and unaffordable House health care bill, Obey chose an actually Constitutional governmental activity, providing for the common defense, to find fiscal probity.
Never mind borrowing for all those other socialistic programs which aren't Constitutionally sanctioned.
We only need to make people feel pain for actually defending the country from Muslim terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans.
This guy is some piece of work. With Representatives like him, no wonder Congress is held in such low esteem nationwide.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Ron Paul's Fed Oversight Bill
I've seen Ron Paul's two recent appearances on CNBC regarding his bill to require more detailed oversight and an audit of the Federal Reserve's activities, albeit on a 6-month delayed basis.
Predictably, the liberal co-anchors on CNBC excoriated Paul for wanting to gut Fed independence. This morning, Paul noted the central bank's miserable performance in protecting the value of the dollar, its original objective, and wondered how much worse it could get?
One astute co-anchor mentioned Congress' own role in spending us into deficits, which have complicated the Fed's ability to fulfill its mandate, and Paul readily agreed.
Still, he contended, what's the purpose of a so-called independent Fed, if they do such a poor job? And then, for good measure, in a stroke of genius, he reminded the co-anchor that Congress created the Federal Reserve System and, thus, can well decide how to modify, eliminate or otherwise reconstitute a US central banking authority.
Good point.
I'm not actually a big Ron Paul fan. I didn't vote for him in last year's primary for the presidential race. To me, he often behaves like a modern-day Don Quixote. His being from Texas lends that view a bit more credibility, being as close as it is to Mexico, a country of Spanish influence.
However, as Congress continues to spend at unprecedentedly faster rates, swelling the deficit and debt even more, at a time of sluggish economic conditions, Paul's economic libertarian concerns become more attractive. Even to a moderate like me.
I think the real attraction in Paul's arguments is for Congress to simply redesign the central bank entirely, aiming toward more simplicity, Constitutionality, and a more Friedmanesque approach to consistent monetary growth.
Predictably, the liberal co-anchors on CNBC excoriated Paul for wanting to gut Fed independence. This morning, Paul noted the central bank's miserable performance in protecting the value of the dollar, its original objective, and wondered how much worse it could get?
One astute co-anchor mentioned Congress' own role in spending us into deficits, which have complicated the Fed's ability to fulfill its mandate, and Paul readily agreed.
Still, he contended, what's the purpose of a so-called independent Fed, if they do such a poor job? And then, for good measure, in a stroke of genius, he reminded the co-anchor that Congress created the Federal Reserve System and, thus, can well decide how to modify, eliminate or otherwise reconstitute a US central banking authority.
Good point.
I'm not actually a big Ron Paul fan. I didn't vote for him in last year's primary for the presidential race. To me, he often behaves like a modern-day Don Quixote. His being from Texas lends that view a bit more credibility, being as close as it is to Mexico, a country of Spanish influence.
However, as Congress continues to spend at unprecedentedly faster rates, swelling the deficit and debt even more, at a time of sluggish economic conditions, Paul's economic libertarian concerns become more attractive. Even to a moderate like me.
I think the real attraction in Paul's arguments is for Congress to simply redesign the central bank entirely, aiming toward more simplicity, Constitutionality, and a more Friedmanesque approach to consistent monetary growth.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Liberals vs. Conservatives As Envy vs. Ambition
Lately, I've been giving a lot of thought to the differing core, underlying values and attitudes which must drive liberals and conservatives.
From my recent reading of Amity Schlaes' excellent book, "The Forgotten Man," current reading of Mark Levin's "Tyranny and Liberty," and frequent viewings of Glenn Beck's Fox News Channel program, it's been easier for me to reflect upon the circumstances surrounding the Founding Fathers' as they wrote the Constitution.
Nearly forgotten now is the struggle those men had in securing the freedom to engage in economic activity as they wished. In the mercantilism system of Great Britain of that time, colonies supplied natural resources and raw materials. Finished goods were largely prohibited to be manufactured. It's not well-recalled now, but in that day, machinery, machine tools and plans for machines were not allowed out of Britain to her colonies.
The Revolution which Americans fought against Britain was as much about economic freedom as it was about political freedom and fair representation to a taxing, governing authority.
In reading about the men who founded our country, there are various references to John Hancock as the colonies' wealthiest man. But you never hear him berated for that. Nor any speeches during the framing of the Constitution calling for punitive taxes on Hancock or his ilk.
Rather than attempt to take the wealth of men like Hancock, the new Republic's structure tried to allow for any other man to rise to similar levels of wealth. The concepts of opportunity and ambition vastly outweighed those of envy or jealousy.
Now, we seem to have reversed this. All we hear is that business people earning "too much" need to pay higher taxes. That the important issues are to provide income and health care to the poor.
No longer does anyone seem to recall that the minimalist Constitution was so written in order to allow everyone to realize the fruits of their own labor and best efforts. It wasn't to levelize incomes and redistribute the new country's total personal incomes.
In short, thanks to the past seventy years' of post-FDR liberal pressure, our Republic is now more focused on seeing envy of economic success given priority over each person's opportunity to realize their own economic and other dreams.
Ambition is given lip-service, while laws are crafted to carry out envy-driven wealth- and income-transfers.
If you can't keep the wealth you create in America, what motivation is there for the poor to improve themselves? Why would anyone labor if the fruits are evaluated and that declared 'excess' by some politician confiscated?
Truly, one can see much more clearly in the current environment that liberals are primarily governed by envy, rather than the individual's ambition to create her/his own better life through one's own labor and talents.
From my recent reading of Amity Schlaes' excellent book, "The Forgotten Man," current reading of Mark Levin's "Tyranny and Liberty," and frequent viewings of Glenn Beck's Fox News Channel program, it's been easier for me to reflect upon the circumstances surrounding the Founding Fathers' as they wrote the Constitution.
Nearly forgotten now is the struggle those men had in securing the freedom to engage in economic activity as they wished. In the mercantilism system of Great Britain of that time, colonies supplied natural resources and raw materials. Finished goods were largely prohibited to be manufactured. It's not well-recalled now, but in that day, machinery, machine tools and plans for machines were not allowed out of Britain to her colonies.
The Revolution which Americans fought against Britain was as much about economic freedom as it was about political freedom and fair representation to a taxing, governing authority.
In reading about the men who founded our country, there are various references to John Hancock as the colonies' wealthiest man. But you never hear him berated for that. Nor any speeches during the framing of the Constitution calling for punitive taxes on Hancock or his ilk.
Rather than attempt to take the wealth of men like Hancock, the new Republic's structure tried to allow for any other man to rise to similar levels of wealth. The concepts of opportunity and ambition vastly outweighed those of envy or jealousy.
Now, we seem to have reversed this. All we hear is that business people earning "too much" need to pay higher taxes. That the important issues are to provide income and health care to the poor.
No longer does anyone seem to recall that the minimalist Constitution was so written in order to allow everyone to realize the fruits of their own labor and best efforts. It wasn't to levelize incomes and redistribute the new country's total personal incomes.
In short, thanks to the past seventy years' of post-FDR liberal pressure, our Republic is now more focused on seeing envy of economic success given priority over each person's opportunity to realize their own economic and other dreams.
Ambition is given lip-service, while laws are crafted to carry out envy-driven wealth- and income-transfers.
If you can't keep the wealth you create in America, what motivation is there for the poor to improve themselves? Why would anyone labor if the fruits are evaluated and that declared 'excess' by some politician confiscated?
Truly, one can see much more clearly in the current environment that liberals are primarily governed by envy, rather than the individual's ambition to create her/his own better life through one's own labor and talents.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Where Next for Sarah Palin?
This week marks the major media rebranding of 2008 GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin. Her own book, "Going Rogue," debuts, with support from a week of New York media appearances, including Oprah Winfrey's and Sean Hannity's programs.
Also carefully timed to this upswell of Palin publicity is Weekly Standard associate editor Matthew Continetti's book, "The Persecution of Sarah Palin."
What will all of this coordinated, concerted attention accomplish?
Probably not that much.
I read a friendly review of Palin's book in the Wall Street Journal this week, and it didn't exactly make me want to buy her book. The all-important 'next steps' chapter in the book was panned as a tepid campaign speech, full of platitudes but short of detail.
There's no getting by the reality that Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska prior to completing her term is a serious liability.
Fox News contributor and noted conservative columnist Mary Katherine Ham opined, on Bill O'Reilly's program, that Palin probably needs to win a House or Senate election in order to demonstrate some commitment to actually learning and grappling with federal-level issues, as well as provide some stability and length to her now-brief record of holding an important governing office.
Ham may be correct, but, unfortunately, two out of three of Alaska's Congressional delegation are already Republican, and the third, Mark Begich, just won election last year to Ted Stevens' seat.
So, there's really no room for Palin on that front.
Despite the many polls suggesting that Palin could improve her image and standing among independent voters, I personally just don't think Sarah Palin has the necessary experience to be seen as qualified for the 2012 presidential election cycle.
Yes, her values are solidly conservative. Yes, she has some valuable experience and perspectives on energy and environmental issues.
But having just suffered through one inexperienced president, it's unlikely Wonderboy's successful GOP opponent will be an equally-inexperienced candidate.
More probably, like Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, in order to realize any presidential hopes, will have to be patient, take a longer, circuitous path, and win a nomination for election to the White House in something more like 7 or 11 years, rather than 3. And that means she has to find a worthy base from which to operate in the meantime, doing genuinely productive work while remaining close to, and occasionally, but not frequently, in the national political spotlight.
Also carefully timed to this upswell of Palin publicity is Weekly Standard associate editor Matthew Continetti's book, "The Persecution of Sarah Palin."
What will all of this coordinated, concerted attention accomplish?
Probably not that much.
I read a friendly review of Palin's book in the Wall Street Journal this week, and it didn't exactly make me want to buy her book. The all-important 'next steps' chapter in the book was panned as a tepid campaign speech, full of platitudes but short of detail.
There's no getting by the reality that Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska prior to completing her term is a serious liability.
Fox News contributor and noted conservative columnist Mary Katherine Ham opined, on Bill O'Reilly's program, that Palin probably needs to win a House or Senate election in order to demonstrate some commitment to actually learning and grappling with federal-level issues, as well as provide some stability and length to her now-brief record of holding an important governing office.
Ham may be correct, but, unfortunately, two out of three of Alaska's Congressional delegation are already Republican, and the third, Mark Begich, just won election last year to Ted Stevens' seat.
So, there's really no room for Palin on that front.
Despite the many polls suggesting that Palin could improve her image and standing among independent voters, I personally just don't think Sarah Palin has the necessary experience to be seen as qualified for the 2012 presidential election cycle.
Yes, her values are solidly conservative. Yes, she has some valuable experience and perspectives on energy and environmental issues.
But having just suffered through one inexperienced president, it's unlikely Wonderboy's successful GOP opponent will be an equally-inexperienced candidate.
More probably, like Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, in order to realize any presidential hopes, will have to be patient, take a longer, circuitous path, and win a nomination for election to the White House in something more like 7 or 11 years, rather than 3. And that means she has to find a worthy base from which to operate in the meantime, doing genuinely productive work while remaining close to, and occasionally, but not frequently, in the national political spotlight.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Another Terrorist Warning: The Fort Hood Massacre
I haven't written anything to date on the Fort Hood massacre.
Initially, there really wasn't a lot to say. It seemed fairly straightforward. A Muslim US Army Major killed 13 and wounded many more in a zealous rage of terror.
It wasn't simple criminality. It was, once one heard the evidence that he yelled "God is Great" in Arabic, clearly a terrorist act.
The real story began with the Army's, media's and administration's denial of this fact. Their attempt to place political correctness above the primary mission of the US armed forces, which is the defense of our country.
But then it got worse. Much, much worse.
We learned last week that the Army actually had intercepted Hassan's phone calls to Al Queda operatives. That he had given a presentation contending that militant Muslims be released from US armed forces obligations, so they could return to sympathetic countries, the easier to wage war on the US.
It strains belief that this could really all be true. That our armed forces could be so badly managed as to know that an officer no longer believed his oath to defend our country, and was actually fomenting dissent in the ranks.
The Army let this continue, let the officer serve, and behaved as if nothing were out of the ordinary.
We now know we have serious problems. Perhaps on the scale of Britain's in handling its own Muslim population.
Much has already been written and spoken about the need to not paint all Muslims with a brush of suspicion. That's true. What is also true is that our armed forces must be purged of this focus on diversity at the expense of execution of its primary mission.
And the primacy of allegiance of all US service men and women to the country which they serve, above any other allegiance to any country, religion, or any other competing entity.
It appears that our nation's ability to defend itself is now vulnerable to this simply requirement being enforced in our military forces.
Initially, there really wasn't a lot to say. It seemed fairly straightforward. A Muslim US Army Major killed 13 and wounded many more in a zealous rage of terror.
It wasn't simple criminality. It was, once one heard the evidence that he yelled "God is Great" in Arabic, clearly a terrorist act.
The real story began with the Army's, media's and administration's denial of this fact. Their attempt to place political correctness above the primary mission of the US armed forces, which is the defense of our country.
But then it got worse. Much, much worse.
We learned last week that the Army actually had intercepted Hassan's phone calls to Al Queda operatives. That he had given a presentation contending that militant Muslims be released from US armed forces obligations, so they could return to sympathetic countries, the easier to wage war on the US.
It strains belief that this could really all be true. That our armed forces could be so badly managed as to know that an officer no longer believed his oath to defend our country, and was actually fomenting dissent in the ranks.
The Army let this continue, let the officer serve, and behaved as if nothing were out of the ordinary.
We now know we have serious problems. Perhaps on the scale of Britain's in handling its own Muslim population.
Much has already been written and spoken about the need to not paint all Muslims with a brush of suspicion. That's true. What is also true is that our armed forces must be purged of this focus on diversity at the expense of execution of its primary mission.
And the primacy of allegiance of all US service men and women to the country which they serve, above any other allegiance to any country, religion, or any other competing entity.
It appears that our nation's ability to defend itself is now vulnerable to this simply requirement being enforced in our military forces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
