Walter E. Williams is quickly becoming one of my favorite syndicated columnists. His articles frequently appear in The Oakland Press.The first to catch my attention was Congressional Constitutional Contempt, promoting Arizona Congressman John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359).
"Simply put, if enacted, the Enumerated Powers Act would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions."
Williams is concerned the federal government is taking more and more power from the states--in terms of both legislation and taxes. He writes:
Just a few of the numerous statements by our founders demonstrate that their vision and the vision of Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act are one and the same. James Madison, in explaining the Constitution in Federalist Paper No. 45, said, "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."
Regarding the "general welfare" clause so often used as a justification for bigger government, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." James Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
Basically, he's saying the amount of money that can be spent to "promote the general welfare" is unlimited. Anything can be justified under broad definitions of promoting "the general welfare." The Enumerated Powers Act would require each act of Congress (both houses) to justify their constitutional authority to grow federal government beyond its limited powers defined by The Constitution.
Continuing the theme of limited federal government Williams' latest article, The Greatest Generation, discusses how much our federal government has grown just since WWII.
Let's look at what else that generation contributed that might qualify them for the generation that laid the foundation for the greatest betrayal of our nation's core founding principle: limited federal government exercising only constitutionally enumerated powers.
When the greatest generation was born, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 2.5 percent. As they are now dying off, federal spending is 20 percent of GDP and that doesn't include government meddling. If the grandparents of the greatest generation were asked to describe their contacts or relationship with the federal government, after a puzzled look, straining their recollection faculties, they might answer, "I used to chat with the mailman once in a while."
Today, there is little any American can do without some form of federal control, whether it's how much water we can use to flush a toilet, what kind of car we drive or how we prepare for retirement. Congress manages our lives in ways unimaginable to our ancestors through agencies created by the greatest generation, such as Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Social Security Administration and a host of alphabet agencies such as EPA, DOL, BLM, CDC and DOT.
In short, our federal government's spending is eight times (8x) what it was when our grand parents were born. The federal government has not grown proportional to its population, its population's income, its imports or its exports. And most of that growth and intrusion comes in the name of "promoting the general welfare."
Williams is asking how can a government's power remain limited if they're using an unlimited definition to justify greater taxing, spending, and dilution of state's powers?
I think that's an important question worth asking and if passed, HR1539 might begin answering it.
Both articles are linked to on the right-hand side of this page under "Recommended Reading." Other of his articles are available at Creator's Syndicate, www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams.html.
If you're already reeling at my use of the word, "mankind," congratulations. You're a soldier in the Army of Political Correctness and are working to control speech.
Global warming hysteria is working to control what people drive.
So speech is being controlled, automobiles increasingly regulated, and now fire places. Of mankind's greatest achievements I'm pretty sure language, the wheel, and fire are among our top three. What kind if psychological condition might explain that? Is it some kind of inferiority complex, guilt, or masochism?
My perspective on democracy has changed significantly since campaigning for mayor. Before I was fairly cynical of elected officials. Now I can let you in on a secret -- elected officials can be just as cynical of voters.
It's important to know the only reason I stopped at most homes is because they'd voted in any of the last three elections. For the record, those would be;
2006's which reelected Governor Granholm, swept many democrats into state and national offices, and approved both the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and Ferndale's Human Rights Ordinance,
2005's when our mayor's salary was increased to $8,142 and Councilpersons Galloway and Gumbleton ran unopposed, and
2004's which reelected President Bush.
Think about that for a minute. With just days to go before the election and with nearly 1000 yard signs throughout Ferndale's neighborhoods from eight local candidates, articles and advertisements in local papers, letters-to-the-editor, literature drops, mailings, cable broadcasts of two candidate forums, web sites, electronic mail, and TV news coverage there were people who had voted in the past and were likely to vote again that hadn't made the connection between themselves and their city's mayor.
How many other residents do you think haven't connected their local officials to their property taxes, property values, sidewalk replacement assessments, public safety budgets, ordinance enforcement, or public schools?
True, city officials don't have direct control over school systems, but they can cooperate with them at least as aggressively as they do nearby cities to share services. The performance of our schools and their students is for many citizens more important than bike lanes on Hilton and because of its impact on home values, school performance should be one of our city council's highest priorities.
So in the "What did I learn" department I can attest to discovering politics is a two-way street. Given the responses at doors of "I'm not interested," "We don't want any," "I don't vote," "I'm voting for the incumbent," (there wasn't one) and my favorite, "Mayor of what?" it's understandable that most political discussion, regardless which medium, has been reduced to sound bites and attack ads just to get voters' attention.
If we don't want Detroit's economic and political morass to become our own, voters--all of them--need to get more involved, become better informed, pay closer attention, and talk with their friends and neighbors about the issues affecting them. Turning out the vote is everyone's responsibility--not just candidates and their pandering, political parties and their attack ads, lobbyists and their sound bites.
Perhaps if we do that then when I'm campaigning next, rather than "Mayor of what?" I'll get, "We're glad you showed up. We have questions for you."
(Too) many politicians make a big deal of their endorsements and lists of contributors. Before running for office something always bothered me about politicians so willing to seek the endorsements of special interest groups then prostitute those endorsements on their campaign literature as though they were the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval.
I always thought it better to elect a candidate because I thought they were the right person for the job, not because someone else thought they were right. I don't know what their motivations are, I don't know if they're trying to guard something, I don't know if endorsements were horse-traded or coerced, and recently I've discovered not all endorsements are true.
So what does it say about a candidate for whom seeking and publicizing endorsements is a cornerstone of their campaign? What does it say about a candidate when for a non-partisan position they keep parading their partisan colors?
I rarely think those candidates are trying to appeal to me, which is why I've not found them appealing. That is why I'm not big on endorsements.
What have I learned about political contributions?
The most important lesson came several weeks ago when I learned not to bother looking for local business' support. Many of my luncheon meetings reminded me a scene from a mobster movie.
Sammy Two-fingers reached across the table and pinched Tommy's cheek. Not letting go he pulled Tommy close to him so only he could hear.
"Tommy, I like you. You're a good kid and you'll do great things for the city. But if Glitter wins and finds out we backed you.. well.. it's.. it's.. nothing personal. It's business."
Two-fingers let go of Tommy and smiled as they both sat back into the booth.
"So I can count on you for my re-election?"
"Naturally."
I would never have thought such a concern was justified until last Sunday when my opponent made much ado about nothing concerning our finance statement then accused a supporter of being a shill at a council meeting a few weeks back. The first shot, it turns out, was self-inflicted.
Suddenly it made sense. It is business. It's the business of dirty politics. But that shouldn't be a local business Ferndale should endorse or encourage. Maybe that's the experience my opponent thinks I'm missing.
That's the kind of experience Ferndale can do without.
Sometimes it's easier to know where you don't want to be than were you want to be. One place I don't want to be is anywhere near my opponent, Mr. Covey, when a couple women I know get a hold of him.
First he insults my wife and campaign treasurer, Tiffani, by claiming our campaign's finance statements were delinquent. Though I was his intended target he's going to wish Tiffani wasn't injured in the attack.
Now he's claiming another woman is a shill (posted late October but retracted mid-November) for our campaign because she chose to respond to him in the same forum he chose to respond to her--a city council meeting.
".. anyone watching the last City Council meeting would know, my opponent did send a surrogate to the Call to Audience who lambasted me for a supposed 'conflict of interest.'"
Mr. Covey hopes no one reading his article will talk to the woman who "lambasted" him. If they did she'd tell them she had a good relationship with Mr. Covey, that they've worked together before, and that she was astounded when he responded during a council meeting to a confidential email she'd sent him privately. She felt her confidence had been betrayed and that she'd been attacked in public. She spoke out to defend herself.
If he thought she was mad because his public response to her private email, I wonder what he'll think when he sees her next after dismissing her as a puppet and trivializing her point on the Internet!
Personally, I think he knows better but is hoping no one else will bother looking behind the curtain.
Now is a good time to introduce our vocabulary word for the day, sophistry
sophistry noun a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone [syn: sophism]
At the end of the same article he tries another sophistry, but trips through some illogical arguments along the way.
"[My opponent's campaign finance report] shows a list of contributors that is a veritable Who's who of Republican activists and supporters. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but it makes one wonder why when asked about leadership and support of local community groups during the debate, Mr. Gagne never mentioned his leadership position with the Ferndale Republican Club. Full disclosure should not include omission by design."
He could have claimed my contributors were a who's-who of church-goers, family members, friends, neighbors, or Australian Aboriginals, but unless you know them by name how would you know? He's hoping you take his word for it.
And what of the Democrats on the list? There are contributors that made Granholm's short list for judicial appointments. Did he mention them? No. He's less interested in the diversity of my support than in vilifying a single group. That kind of bias isn't what Ferndale's known for.
Next he says there's nothing wrong with that (if he really thought that why say it in the first place?) but why didn't I include my relationship with the Ferndale Republicans? Again, he's hoping you don't remember the question asked for non-partisan activities. I was surprised he listed his involvement with the Democratic clubs because last I checked they were still partisan.
In retrospect, I didn't like my answer to the community involvement question either. I would have rather started with, "I believe charity begins at home. It starts with giving generously of my time to my wife, Tiffani, and my sons, Joshua and Michael." Then move from there to talk about Cub Scouts, soccer teams, church groups, pre-schools, dances, movies, monitoring their online activities, the rest of my family, neighbors, etc.
Most of Tiffani's and my extra-curriculars will involve our children and their activities. If that makes me an activist, well, I can live with that.
On September 10 I wrote an article describing how two candidates for the same position could get along and agree not to stoop to the kind of negative campaign tactics that are typical today and so poorly serve both voters and democracy.
I was as proud of that article as any I've written, but I'm sorry to report that pledge came to an abrupt and surprising end at the conclusion of Sunday's candidate forum, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, during councilman Craig Covey's closing statement.
Mr. Covey said of elected officials that voters, ".. entrust us with a very serious and deep responsibility. My campaign .. has followed the rules, followed the regulations. If you go to Oakland County you will see that we've filed our campaign finance reports so that there's full disclosure..."
"Here we have a notice of failure to file from Oakland County, it's online, from my opponent."
Mr. Covey isn't as familiar with campaign finance laws as he wants you to believe he is, or that four campaigns and eight years on council might have taught. The county clerk's instructions state any report, ".. sent by registered mail, certified mail or an overnight delivery service and postmarked two (2) or more days before the filing deadline will be accepted as a timely filing regardless of when it is delivered (emphasis not added)."
To make a long story short, you can visit both our campaign's filings as well as Friends of Craig Covey's and see for yourself which campaign, ".. has followed the rules [and] followed the regulations."
The forum's moderator, Neil Zechman, instructed candidates ahead of time they were to avoid saying anything directly about their opponents. That was good advice. It keeps candidates focused on their message and shows respect to the audience and voters alike.
So what really happened?
The October 26 deadline was for finance reports as of the close of business, Sunday, October 21. Tiffani (my wife, campaign manager and treasurer) delivered our complete report that Monday to the Pleasant Ridge Post Office and for $6.11 received a Certified Mail receipt post-marked 10/22.
AT 8AM this morning she called Oakland County and confirmed the clerk hadn't received it yet then visited the Pleasant Ridge Post Office. She was impolitely told Pleasant Ridge didn't scan certified mail--that was Royal Oak's job. In Royal Oak another unfriendly clerk informed her it wasn't their problem--that would be Pontiac's responsibility.
Regardless, Tiffani hand-delivered a copy of our report to the clerk's office in Pontiac along with our proof of certified mailing. The report was promptly initialed by the clerk, marked "timely," scanned in, and the computer-generated late notice removed.
The undelivered certified package was returned to us today, a week later, because even though the USPS clerk in Pleasant Ridge took Tiffani's $6.11, gave her a receipt, and stuck the "certified mail" label on the package, they didn't affix the postage stamp. It was returned for $6.11 postage.
So the video proves I was right. It was government in action!
So now we've invaded Iraq and many American's don't understand why. In reality they know perfectly well why but prefer denial. We're there because we're dependent on foreign oil. We're dependent on it because our lifestyles require it. We live further and further from work, enjoy the luxury and autonomy of one-car-one-person, and drive increasingly larger vehicles. Our "right" to live where we want and commute how we want is not without costs beyond $2.25/gallon. As ignorant as pretending the consequences may be it is disingenuous to drive to a No Drilling in ANWR demonstration in anything less than a bus filled with like-minded protesters or display a "No War" lawn sign with the same SUV parked in the driveway you drive 20 miles to work.
Now Alan Greenspan has a new book coming out that has already re-agitated this controversy. The Washington Post reported Greenspan blamed the invasion of Iraq on oil. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took issue with Greenspan's comments on this past weekends television news programs.
In a Washington Post interview, Greenspan has explained his out-of-context comment in a way that makes me sound like a Washington insider:
His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.
Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.
Well, since my blog is locally-focused I didn't rush into any "global economy" claims. But I must admit some satisfaction knowing Mr. Greenspan and I have something in common--even if he doesn't call me to discuss national and international issues.
