I had written a while ago out of a frustration of Obama becoming the Imperial President that Richard Nixon was accused of, and of the seemingly walk down the path of The Rule of Law to the Rule of Man given the actions of the Executive Branch’s Departments and Agencies:
The President’s first job is to protect this country from attack within and without.
His second job is not to lead us to correct decisions, but to make sure that WE get to make the choices (and keep government out of our way).
Third job is – heck, if we can get one that will pay attention to the first two, I’d be happy….that second one will prove to be very tricky (all those politicians, you know…)
One of the first questions that came up is what to do when "we the people" wish to do something that would be currently unconsitutional.
…if the PEOPLE wish to do something that is currently unconstitutional, there is a way to change the Constitution. But it is, however, hard to do by design – and I agree with that. Even so, it can be changed. Example – direct election of Senators. I myself now believe that to have been a dumb idea, as it severed the "States’ interest" and eliminated a check and balance (do you think that Medicaid would have ever passed with it, ripping States’ budgets apart?).
It seems, however, that Progressives (and others more interested in power and an ends to a means), often will side step that…
…process. They give lip service to the Constitution, yet continue to work around its precepts.
Another person questioned my emphasis that the President was not to lead us, but to make sure we can make our own decisions (which was the basic idea behind our Republic). It seems that they are persuaded that ‘we the people’ are unable to lead ourselves; their contention is that EVERY organization needs a leader:
…in times of a national emergency, a President does need to rise up and lead. But those times are, by definition, few and far apart (generally, for discussion’s sake). All other times, people should do what they want to (given legalities and such). It may be chaos to you, or to me, but people doing what they wish is a desired activity of their’s; not chaos to them.
Example 1: If you listen to Ray Lahood, we all should be living in dense living situations (cities) and not sprawled out suburbia or rural areas – for sustainability. It is NOT the job of the government to decide what a favored living situation is nor start to put policies into place (e.g., almost untenable CAFE standards) to force / nudge that government sponsored behavior.
Example 2: Govt is making major decisions about what type of energy solutions the rest of us are allowed to have / use / pay for. That should not be so.
Unfortunately, the tax code is used, not for revenue generation, but for social engineering (usually, some whackadoodle’s idea of a great idea – or implementation of "rent-seeking"). It should not be allowing the latter as a "preferred status" and usually, social engineering has ramifications as stated by The Law of Unintended Consequences – politicians and bureaucrats should leave well enough alone.
I disagree – I am from the self-directed teams environment. And the TEA Party is such a derivative – there is no "Leader" per se – but like minded people banding together that, in a decentralized / dispersed fashion, decided that centralization is not correct.
DC has become (and many state capitals) too much of a power nexus – the WE have decided to neuter such a gathering of power. Leader? There are those that WANT to lead, who believe that they are destined to lead, and will lead with a vengance.
If I was to have a leader, I want the "reluctant leader" – one who leads when necessary, but only when necessary and whose only wish is to get the job done right and quickly. Then goes home and resumes their civilian life.
We have too few of the latter and way too many of the former.
And then I was baited with the "Social Darwinism" label for disagreeing that the President should steer us on an energy policy because we individuals only see the "little picture" so the President has to help us "see" it:
Trying to bait me, with the "social Darwinism" (heh!)?
The President puts his pants on the same way I do – and is in no way better than I or you or most people in seeing a big picture – the marketplace is just too huge with too many ‘data bits’ for a single person or entity to control correctly. Only when that decision making is dispersed and distributed can the correct decisions be made by those that the decisions affect – us. What is good for me is not always optimal for someone else. I have no right to make an economic decision on someone else’s behalf because I DON’T KNOW all the data that I would need to make that decision correctly. Advise? sure – but not make. And that’s just one person.
In a country of 310 million, how is the President, or the govt going to make great decisions for everyone? After all, how’s that ethanol subsidy working out? Ever hear of a company called Solyandra in which the Administration decided it was a better Venture capitalist than real Venture Capitalists? How about Evergreen in MA – gee, what a surprise there?
Govt should stay out of the way of picking winners and losers – not only companies but also industries. Time to go back to an even playing field instead of the multi-dimensional tilts that allow for rent-seeking. Yes, get rid of all corporate subsidies. If the marketplace cannot sustain a company or industry, the Govt should not either (and yes, there are some few exceptions, but should be REALLY FEW exceptions).
No, the President / Govt should NOT be deciding where our energy sources come from, just as they should not be trying to control the healthcare marketplace (after all, the govt monopoly on k-12 education is working so dandily for the urban poor, eh?).
As far as our oil comes from? Not the Middle East – try Canada and Mexico – those Canucks; sly foxes, aren’t they? Molsen Ale and RPGs just go SO well together!
Back to my second point which was that we, the people, should be left alone and free to make the best decisions for ourselves & families rather than have govt making them for me.
F’instance, Obama decided that Big Cars were a no-no when he jacked up the CAFE standards last year and put the incremental percentage on it to boot.
With that, TWO decisions were made – one was that we would all be relegated to buying far smaller cars simply because some thought that was "the best for everyone" instead of letting US decide through the marketplace.It also said "The US will now only consist of, at most, 4 people". Why? Small cars and kid seats don’t go well together. And who, of modest means, is going to be able to afford a second car simply to haul a third kid around ?
The Obama administration just killed Social Security with that (already suffering from demographical decay, Obama just put the brake on it).
