The State of Our Union Is Broke

By Mark Steyn

January 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Had I been asked to deliver the State of the Union address, it would not have delayed your dinner plans:

“The State of our Union is broke, heading for bankrupt, and total collapse shortly thereafter. Thank you and goodnight! You’ve been a terrific crowd!”

I gather that Americans prefer something a little more upbeat, so one would not begrudge a speechwriter fluffing it up by holding out at least the possibility of some change of fortune, however remote. Instead, President Obama assured us at great length that nothing is going to change, not now, not never. Indeed the Union’s state — its unprecedented world-record brokeness — was not even mentioned. If, as I was, you happened to be stuck at Gate 27 at one of the many U.S. airports laboring under the misapprehension that pumping CNN at you all evening long somehow adds to the gaiety of flight delays, you would have watched an address that gave no indication its speaker was even aware that the parlous state of our finances is an existential threat not only to the nation but to global stability. The message was, oh, sure, unemployment’s still a little higher than it should be, and student loans are kind of expensive, and the housing market’s pretty flat, but it’s nothing that a little government “investment” in green jobs and rural broadband and retraining programs can’t fix. In other words, more of the unaffordable same.

The president certainly had facts and figures at his disposal. He boasted that his regulatory reforms “will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years.” Wow. Ten billion smackeroos! That’s some savings — and in a mere half a decade! Why, it’s equivalent to what the government of the United States borrows every 53 hours. So by midnight on Thursday Obama had already re-borrowed all those hard-fought savings from 2017. “In the last 22 months,” said the president, “businesses have created more than three million jobs.” Impressive. But 125,000 new foreign workers arrive every month (officially). So we would have to have created 2,750,000 jobs in that period just to stand still.

Fortunately, most of the items in Obama’s interminable speech will never happen, any more than the federally funded bicycling helmets or whatever fancies found their way onto Bill Clinton’s extravagant shopping lists in the Nineties. At the time, the excuse for Clinton’s mountain of legislative molehills was that all the great battles had been won, and, in the absence of a menacing Russian bear, what else did a president have to focus on except criminalizing toilet tanks over 1.6 gallons. President Obama does not enjoy the same dispensation, and any historians stumbling upon a surviving DVD while sifting through the ruins of our civilization will marvel at how his accumulation of delusional trivialities was apparently taken seriously by the assembled political class.

An honest leader would feel he owed it to the citizenry to impress upon them one central truth — that we can’t have any new programs because we’ve spent all the money. It’s gone. The cupboard is bare. What’s Obama’s plan to restock it? “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary,” the president told us. “Asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

But why stop there? Americans need affordable health care and affordable master’s degrees in Climate Change and Social Justice Studies, so why not take everything that Warren Buffett’s got? After all, if you confiscated the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it would come to $1.5 trillion.

Which is just a wee bit less than the federal shortfall in just one year of Obama-sized budgets. 2011 deficit: $1.56 trillion. But maybe for 2012 a whole new Forbes 400 of Saudi princes and Russian oligarchs will emigrate to the Hamptons and Malibu and keep the whole class-warfare thing going for a couple more years.

The so-called “Buffett Rule” is indicative not so much of “common sense” as of the ever widening gap between the Brobdingnagian problem and the Lilliputian solutions proposed by our leaders. Obama can sacrifice the virgin daughters of every American millionaire on the altar of government spending and the debt gods will barely notice so much as to give a perfunctory belch of acknowledgement. The president’s first term has added $5 trillion to the debt — a degree of catastrophe unique to us. In an Obama budget, the entire cost of the Greek government would barely rate a line-item. Debt-to-GDP and other comparative measures are less relevant than the hard-dollar numbers: It’s not just that American government has outspent America’s ability to fund it, but that it’s outspending the planet’s.

Who gets this? Not enough of us — which is exactly how Obama likes it. His only “big idea” — that it should be illegal (by national fiat) to drop out of school before your 18th birthday — betrays his core belief: that more is better, as long as it’s government-mandated, government-regulated, government-staffed — and funded by you, or Warren Buffett, or the Chinese Politburo, or whoever’s left out there.

What of his likely rivals this November? Those of us who have lived in once-great decaying polities recognize the types. Jim Callaghan, prime minister at 10 Downing Street in the Seventies, told a friend of mine that he saw his job as managing Britain’s decline as gracefully as possible. The United Kingdom certainly declined on his watch, though not terribly gracefully. In last Monday’s debate, Newt Gingrich revived the line and accused by implication Mitt Romney of having no higher ambition than to “manage the decline.” Running on platitudinous generalities, Mitt certainly betrays little sense that he grasps the scale of the crisis. After a fiery assault by Rick Santorum on Romney’s support for an individual mandate in health care, Mitt sneered back at Rick that “it wasn’t worth getting angry over.” Which may be a foretaste of the energy he would bring to any attempted course correction in Washington.

Newt, meanwhile, has committed himself to a lunar colony by the end of his second term, and, while pandering to an audience on Florida’s “Space Coast,” added that, as soon as there were 13,000 American settlers on the moon, they could apply for statehood. Ah, the old frontier spirit: I hear Laura Ingalls Wilder is already working on Little House in the Crater.

Maybe Newt’s on to something. Except for the statehood part. One day, when America gets the old foreclosure notice in the mail, wouldn’t it be nice to close up the entire joint, put the keys in an envelope, slide it under the door of the First National Bank of Shanghai, and jet off on Newt’s Starship Government-Sponsored Enterprise?

There are times for dreaming big dreams, and there are times to wake up. This country will not be going to the moon, any more than the British or French do. Because, in decline, the horizons shrivel. The only thing that’s going to be on the moon is the debt ceiling. Before we can make any more giant leaps for mankind, we have to make one small, dull, prosaic, earthbound step here at home — and stop. Stop the massive expansion of micro-regulatory government, and then reverse it. Obama has vowed to press on. If Romney and Gingrich can’t get serious about it, he’ll get his way.

— Mark Steyn

The State of Our Union Is Broke

By Mark Steyn



An honest leader would feel he owed it to the citizenry to impress upon them one central truth — that we can’t have any new programs because we’ve spent all the money. It’s gone. The cupboard is bare.

— Mark Steyn

Ya, a smart one would say that too, but he still thinks he's dealing
with a " bunch of gun loving Bible clinging" nin com poops that he
can continue to snow with his Socialist BS.

When the nation stops pointing the blame at one person, or one party, we'll all realized that every politician in Washington in the same just with a different letter at the end of their name. When we as a nation realize that they are all the same, we'll realize that radical change is required. While companies have the money to lobby politicians in office and the Good Ol' Boys already in office press their strength on the newer officials, it is us the voters who have to vote them into office.

The top 30 companies spent more money on lobbying Washington and paying off officials than they did in taxes. We need to remove lobbying and the ability for corporations to pay off our legislatures, vote out all of the Good Ol' Boys and only then might we have a chance of getting our country back.

The top 30 companies spent more money on lobbying Washington and paying off officials than they did in taxes. We need to remove lobbying and the ability for corporations to pay off our legislatures, vote out all of the Good Ol' Boys and only then might we have a chance of getting our country back.

Very True. :)

very sad

I am with you JD, on politicians/lobbies.
Only way to avoid it is to set a limit on the total campaign dollars allowed
and pay for it with taxpayer $. After all they are suppose to be representing us
the taxpayer.

The thing that bothers me the most is the current administration
taking us down the Socilaistic road. It doesn't work.

I am with you JD, on politicians/lobbies.
Only way to avoid it is to set a limit on the total campaign dollars allowed
and pay for it with taxpayer $. After all they are suppose to be representing us
the taxpayer.

The thing that bothers me the most is the current administration
taking us down the Socilaistic road. It doesn't work.

Can you specify what you consider "Socilaistic?"

Can you specify what you consider "Socilaistic?"

To put it in my layman's terms, it's redistribution of wealth, punishing success,
a large welfare system and a large government involved in people's lives.

The old share and share alike.

"It works great till you run out of other people's money." :)

It disgust me Newt and Mitt arguing over who got the most of our Fanny Mae bail out money .. Working shmucks lose thier houses ,,these guys cash in .. legal yes , is it moral ..

To put it in my layman's terms, it's redistribution of wealth, punishing success,
a large welfare system and a large government involved in people's lives.

The old share and share alike.

"It works great till you run out of other people's money." :)

Nothing specific, though? I mean, how is it different than it was under Reagan or Bush or Bush ii or Clinton? Welfare reform happened over 15 years ago; that hasn't changed. The tax rates are lower than under Reagan. I don't mean generalized conservative talking points. What specifically?

Nothing specific, though? I mean, how is it different than it was under Reagan or Bush or Bush ii or Clinton? Welfare reform happened over 15 years ago; that hasn't changed. The tax rates are lower than under Reagan. I don't mean generalized conservative talking points. What specifically?

Like I said we are going down the highway to socailism.

Take Obamacare for instance, government taking over healthcare when the
private sector can handle it with some changes in Tort and interstate competition.

Obama wanting to spend another $3 Trillion on more government programs
when we are already $12 Trillion in debt. You mention Bush. Well, how about
going back to 2008 government spending limits. What are the emergency needs
that require us to spend another 25% over 2008?

Obama wanting to redistribute the wealth by increasing taxes on the rich and
those making over $250 thousand a year. Here taking advantage of human
nature's jealousy. How come he has more than me?

An Iron Worker working on a 40 story building in below freezing temps and
high winds taking a risk compared to a government worker pushing paper
in a warm office, who deserves more? Same with sucessful business people
who work 24/7 to build a business, hire people, pay their benefits, pay business
tax and risk their capital. Again because they are sucessful should they pay
higher taxes than the office worker? Socialism would say yes.

I could go on and on Zimmy, but American Capitalism is based on rewarding
success in a free market, ownership of private property and a right to
protect us from intrusive government. I'll take that any day.

Like I said we are going down the highway to socailism.

Take Obamacare for instance, government taking over healthcare when the
private sector can handle it with some changes in Tort and interstate competition.

Government isn't taking over health care, that is false. The private sector will still be responsible for healthcare. At this point, the government covers the healthcare of millions of people when they go to the ER for general care. That has been going on forever under all presidents. The net cost may actually be lower.
Obama wanting to spend another $3 Trillion on more government programs when we are already $12 Trillion in debt. You mention Bush. Well, how about going back to 2008 government spending limits. What are the emergency needs that require us to spend another 25% over 2008?
Majority of the difference is the cost of medicare and social security. and paying down the debt.

Obama wanting to redistribute the wealth by increasing taxes on the rich and those making over $250 thousand a year. Here taking advantage of humannature's jealousy. How come he has more than me?

Reagan redistributed wealth more than Obama, based on what you are saying. Was he a socialist? It isn't a question of "humannature's jealousy," it is a question of whether the tax system under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton worked better than what Bush 2 gave us. We are a country with a progressive tax system. If it is unfair to tax Mitt Romney at higher than 15%, that is an opinion, one of which I will never agree with.

An Iron Worker working on a 40 story building in below freezing temps and high winds taking a risk compared to a government worker pushing paper in a warm office, who deserves more? Same with sucessful business peoplewho work 24/7 to build a business, hire people, pay their benefits, pay business tax and risk their capital. Again because they are sucessful should they pay higher taxes than the office worker? Socialism would say yes.

The iron worker has it a heck of alot tougher financially than a millionaire, yet you would prefer that the iron worker pays the same percentage of tax as the millionaire because it is "fair." I am not sure where you get the idea that the iron worker will pay more than the "office worker." I, like most Americans, including many millionaires (Rick Santorum, Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush included) believe that a progressive tax system is reasonable. It isn't socialism. The Republican mouthpieces spew the word around to scare people. It is rather pathetic.

I could go on and on Zimmy, but American Capitalism is based on rewardingsuccess in a free market, ownership of private property and a right to protect us from intrusive government. I'll take that any day.

Make it a free market, where one industry doesn't get preferential treatment over another. The Republicans would never ever let that happen. If you understand how subsidies, tariffs, and incentives work, you know that what we have is not free market. Pretty much every piece of reform under Obama is there to protect consumers from the kind of corporate malfeasance that contributed to the collapse of the economy.


tt

Nothing specific, though? I mean, how is it different than it was under Reagan or Bush or Bush ii or Clinton? Welfare reform happened over 15 years ago; that hasn't changed. The tax rates are lower than under Reagan. I don't mean generalized conservative talking points. What specifically? Socialism is a catch-all term that incorporates just about every economic attribute other than market forces. There are many forms of socialism--someone in 1924 identified 40 types or subtypes. No doubt it has expanded since then. Some of the major types that you can find on Wikipedia are: utopian socialism, market socialism, state capitalism, democratic socialism, anarchism, leninism, marxism, libertarian socialism, syndicalism . . . etc. Some are quite different, and opposite of some others, but the one thing that I find they all have in common (with the possible exception of anarchism) is the reliance on some form of collectivism as opposed to individualism.

The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon to contrast his utopian doctrine which depended on cooperation as an alternative to individualism. He thought that "the whole of society ought to strive towards the amelioration of the moral and physical existence of the poorest class; society ought to organize itself in the way best adapted for attaining this end."

So, as to what specifically is socialistic about Obama's policies? First, there is a difference between socialistic and socialism. Justplugit didn't say socialism--he said down the road to it, socialistic. That is-- like it and heading toward it. There are, supposedly, 4 types of economic systems--traditional, command, market, and mixed. The traditional is a primitive type of socialism that only exists today in isolated minor societies such as Australian aboriginal and isolated Amazon tribes, though it was, in the past widespread through most societies. Command system is uber socialist as represented most notoriously by the collapsed Soviet systems. Pure market would be individual oriented, freedom from collective or governmental manipulation. Mixed market is supposedly a mixture of free market and some form of socialism. So, in actuallity, there are two types of economic systems--socialism and market economies. And since government is a non-market force that will always impose to some degree on markets for the "common good," it is a collective force, therefore socialistic in nature. That is to say, so long as we will have government, and we always will, there can never be an absolutely free market.

That being said, the difference between Reagan, etc., and Obama would be degree. We have a mixed economy, though it is more free market than most others. The 19th century U.S. laissez faire economy was the closest that major modern economies came to totally free market. The progressive (socialistic) theorists and politicians of the early twentieth century started to instill greater government regulation of the market and the Great Depression brought on massive regulation that was slowly retarded after WWII, but again started to grow in the 1960's with the Great Society policies. What Reagan attempted, and succeeded to a degree, was to slow that socialistic trend and reverse it slightly and temporarily, but, of course, to get his anti-communist maneuvers, he had to give back to the socially minded Democrat Congress, and the socialistic trend began to rise again. So yeah, all the POTUS's you mentioned had socialistic elements, even to a great degree, in their administrations. You mention that all reforms under Obama were to protect consumers from corporate malfeasance. That is the siren call of socialism--governmental protection of the collective people from individual "malfeasance." Obama is continuing, very powerfully, the road to socialism to which jusplugit refers. Most people don't like the word "socialism," but they actually like what it offers. And the "reforms" that are mandated and implemented through and by the various administrative, unelected, regulatory agencies are absolutely socialistic, not free market, not even representative government. And because they are "for the people" there is no hue and cry against them. What is seen is the beneficence of government acting for people in their personal endeavors, but what is not seen is the debilitating effect on the ability of individuals to act for themselves. We fall under the spell of that soft despotism that nobody seems to mind until we begin to realize that our personal life is in control of government which can no longer afford to give us the protection we thought was so desirable, and the opportunities that once abounded have shrunk and we depend even more on the helping hand that softly took our power.

So, the question is: do we want to continue expanding the government's socialistic intrusion into the lives of individuals in order to achieve egalitiarian goals? Do we prefer the motto of the French revolution (which was the driving force and inspiration for the great socialistic upheavals and theories such as Marxism)--"Liberty, EQUALITY, fraternity," or shoud we stick to our American "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? The big difference being in our emphasis on individual life and pursuits as opposed to the leveling egalitarionism of socialism. FDR, our greatest mover toward socialism, made a telling admission in his Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom From Want, and Freedom From Fear. The first two freedoms were guaranteed by our Constitution. The last two, Want and Fear, he tried to eliminate with unconstitutional government regulation and agencies which massively, socialistically, expanded government power. The first two were freedoms from government power (negative Constitutional freedoms). The last two were "freedoms" granted by and given by collective government power (positive government grants). So last two were not truly freedoms because they were not actuated by the individual, but imposed by government, thus making the individual dependent on government to attain "freedom" from Want and Fear. Ironically, Want and Fear are two of the greatest motivators for individuals to act. To take away that motivation by providing an elimination of Want and Fear is to take away powerful motivations for the individual to act. It, rather, motivates the individual to more easily become part of collective society to secure his needs. Some form of nationalized, guaranteed health care has been a dream of our socialistic, progressive reformers at least since FDR. Though Obama's health care bill is not ostensibly "government" health care because private insurance companies will be providing the coverage, we have that mixed market intervention operating here. The government is mandating this plan, and mandating that all participate (or pay a fine), and mandating many requirements. The regulation is unprecedented and massive. The mixed market here is more heavily toward the socialistic than the free market. This, as the various regulations and agencies (to supposedly help the consumer) that Obama is fostering all fall under the definition of one of the many forms of socialism. They are not free market. Are they different than past administrations? I perceive them to be more blatantly socialistically transformative than Reagan and even the Bush's (who were not so free market). But to be stuck on who was more socialistic, as if there is little or no difference, distracts from the question of "do we want to continue down the road to socialism?"

tt

Zimmy, your use of red print makes it impossible to respond point
by point as it won't show on your quote.
I'm not about to take the time to keep looking back at what you said but a few comments and questions.

The net cost of Obama care may be less?

Adding 30 million people to the rolls makes that highly improbable
and yes the private sector will still be involved but under
the heavy hand of Govt. rules , regulations and 2000 pages of
who knows what's in there.

Facts and sources please that the majority of the $3 trillion will be used
for social security, medicare and paying down the debt.

40% ss and medicare, 20% defense, 6% interest on debt. That leaves 1/3 of the budget is everything else. Adding 30 million people to the rolls... many of those people already cost huge amounts of money at the ER and in the overall cost of health care. Having uninsured is not cheap. Currently 83 million people are covered by gov. health insurance. 30 million more won't be directly added. Many will be able to get private insurance due to the changes the bill institutes. This is from the cbo, not a liberal organization: 143 billion decrease in the budget deficit over a decade. Some of that is from tax rates going to Clinton levels. I know, it is unfair in your opinion. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress (http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html)

interesting read as well

Zimmy, your use of red print makes it impossible to respond

I'm shocked that he made his "generalized socialistic talking points" in red :rotf2: it does kinda hurt your head to read it for a few reasons

some interesting and relevant history...

Obama’s Seizure and Truman’s


By Garland Tucker

January 31, 2012

On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care act. The central question is, What limits does the Constitution — specifically, the Commerce Clause — impose upon the federal government’s exercise of power? This health-care act is the defining legislation of the president’s term, and the issue of limited government is at the very heart of the debate between Obama and his opponents. The political, economic, and constitutional stakes are very high. These arguments before the Court will provide a dramatic — and perhaps even decisive — backdrop for the 2012 election.

Constitutional crises of this magnitude are not without precedent. Indeed, the seeds of this case can be found in the court battles of the 1930s and 1940s, as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation challenged traditional constitutional bounds. Supported by record congressional majorities, FDR and his fellow Democrats passed a blizzard of programs designed to alleviate the economic hardship of the Great Depression — and to alter the very fabric of the U.S. capitalistic system.

The 1932 Democratic platform, largely written by the party’s 1924 nominee, John W. Davis, was a clear statement of conservative, Jeffersonian principles, but FDR abandoned this platform during his first hundred days in office. So radical were the changes that by 1935, conservatives — Democrats and Republicans alike — agreed with Davis when he wrote, “If the structure of this Government is to be preserved, the courts must do it.”

As conservatives looked in desperation to the judiciary for relief, Davis was their logical leader. A highly esteemed former solicitor general under President Wilson, former ambassador to Great Britain, former president of the American Bar Association, and senior partner at one of New York’s premier law firms, Davis commanded respect from all quarters of the political and legal spectrum. As a founder of the bipartisan, anti–New Deal Liberty League in 1934, Davis repeatedly wrote to his supporters, “I believe in the Constitution of the United States; I believe in the division of powers that it makes. I believe in the right of private property, the sanctity and binding power of contracts; the duty of self-help. I am opposed to confiscatory taxation, wasteful expenditure, socialized industry, and a planned economy controlled and directed by government functionaries. I believe these things to be inimical to human liberty and destructive of American ideals.”

Sensing the gravity of the crisis, Davis seized every opportunity and expertly wielded every legal weapon at his disposal to thwart the New Deal. Publicly labeling the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) “a bribe to farmers,” he signed the amicus curiae brief and successfully led the fight that ultimately resulted in the court’s 6–3 ruling that the AAA was unconstitutional. He successfully opposed the Public Utility Holding Act in the lower courts and led the fight against it within the American Bar Association. Davis personally argued the unconstitutionality of the Frazier-Lemke Bankruptcy Act and the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act before the Supreme Court.

When Roosevelt responded to these courtroom defeats by setting forth his infamous court-packing scheme in 1937, it was Davis who advised the New Deal’s congressional opponents in defeating the measure. By the late 1930s, he had earned the New Dealers’ enduring enmity, and he wore with pride their sobriquet, “Public Enemy Number One.”

During the course of these battles, Davis repeatedly warned that “paternalism fastens its grasp upon the country, and, little by little, the practice of local self-government fades away. Baptize a scheme, even the most fantastic, with a high-sounding and attractive title, and it will elicit the public support.” Of the failure to limit government, he admonished, “Nothing but mischief, to my way of thinking, can come from any government attempting tasks which lie beyond its power to accomplish.” Ever clear about the indivisibility of property rights from human rights, Davis contended, “The two are not antagonistic. History furnishes no instance where the right of man to acquire and hold property has been taken away without the complete destruction of liberty in all its forms.”

Davis’s crowning achievement as Public Enemy Number One came in 1952 in one of the most famous cases in U.S. constitutional history. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, widely known as “the steel-seizure case,” an overly confident, overreaching president was unexpectedly halted by the bounds of the Constitution.

The steel-seizure case arose from a crisis in the prosecution of the Korean War. By late 1951, the war demands had resulted in record output from the U.S. steel industry. Subsequently, the steelworkers demanded a 35-cents-per-hour wage increase, and the unions threatened a strike that would have crippled the war effort. Negotiations at the Wage Stabilization Board postponed the showdown until the following spring, but the unions and the steel companies had intractably squared off by April of 1952. For political reasons, President Harry Truman — ever the partisan Democrat — refused to invoke the Republican-authored Taft-Hartley Act, by which the government could temporarily enjoin a strike.

Truman harbored a deep distrust of corporate America, siding instinctively and decisively with the unions. When Treasury Secretary Snyder urged caution, Truman snorted, “The president has the power to keep the country from going to hell.”

On the evening of April 8, the president addressed the nation dramatically by radio and announced that the steel companies were “trying to get special, preferred treatment. . . . And they are apparently willing to stop steel production to get it. As president of the United States it is my plain duty to keep this from happening. . . . At midnight, the government will take over the steel plants.”

By the following morning, management of the steel industry had been handed over to Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer. But with this bold move to end the impasse, Truman had initiated a new crisis — a constitutional crisis. In brazen disregard for any pretense of respect for separation of powers, Truman and Chief Justice Fred Vinson had discussed the possibility of seizure by the government, and Vinson had assured the president he was within his rights.

The public outcry against the administration’s action was immediate, and the steel companies quickly sued to recover their property. Federal Judge David Pine ruled that the seizure was illegal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

During this escalating crisis, the steel companies sought Davis’s counsel. By that time, he had argued more cases before the Supreme Court (138) than any American save Daniel Webster. Convinced for the past 30 years that the government was dangerously overreaching its constitutional bounds, Davis had become the universally acknowledged appellate champion of constitutional restraint and limited government. It was natural that Republic Steel would seek his counsel, and the other steel firms agreed to have him alone argue the case.

By 1952, the Court was constituted entirely of Democratic appointees. Conventional wisdom held that this Court would willingly embrace any expansion of government power. Certainly, President Truman was extremely confident that his action would be upheld. He had confided to Secretary Snyder that he would be “terribly shocked, disappointed, and disturbed” should he lose.

On May 12, Davis rose to make his 139th argument before the Supreme Court, arguing that Truman’s action was not only “a usurpation of power without parallel in American history” but also a “reassertion of kingly prerogative, the struggle against which illumines all the pages of Anglo-Saxon history.” Davis drew repeatedly on the conservative Jeffersonian principles that had guided his long career and rested his case with Jefferson’s own words: “In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

On June 2, after barely three weeks of deliberation, the Court ruled 6–3 that the seizure was unconstitutional. This was indeed a stunning triumph for constitutionalism. For the majority, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “We cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property .” The even more left-leaning Justice William O. Douglas concurred: “Today a kindly President uses the seizure power to effect a wage increase and to keep the steel furnaces in production. Yet tomorrow another President might use the same power to prevent a wage increase or to regiment labor as oppressively as industry thinks it has been regimented by this seizure.”

Davis’s key insight was that “the limitations which our Constitution seeks to impose are not intended to prevent Government from doing those things which no one could wish to do on any pretext, but rather to fix the bounds which cannot be exceeded even by conscious rectitude and righteous people.” Today, a confident Nancy Pelosi asks dismissively, “Are you serious?” at the suggestion that the effective federal seizure of American health care might be ruled unconstitutional. She and President Obama would well ponder the words of their fellow Democrat John W. Davis.

I know, it is unfair in your opinion.

What I consider fair or unfair doesn't matter.
What does matter is what kind of country will be left to
my kids and Grandkids.
If this administration continues on it's Socialistic path and spending,
there won't be anything left, certainly not the American Dream.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress (http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html)

interesting read as well

LOL Karl, by the time I read and tried to digest all that info I'd be an old man with grey wiskers,
Oh that's right, I am an old man with grey wiskers. :D

What I consider fair or unfair doesn't matter.
What does matter is what kind of country will be left to
my kids and Grandkids.
If this administration continues on it's Socialistic path and spending,
there won't be anything left, certainly not the American Dream.

Pretty scary stuff.

Oh yeah, you might want to read what Karl posted and digest it if you are concerned about the reality of the situation.

Oh yeah, you might want to read what Karl posted and digest it if you are concerned about the reality of the situation.



Thanks for your Lib elietist thinking that I need to read more,
but having lived through 18 administrations, I'll go by the reality of my own experiences. :hihi:

Oh, and just to make it "fair"" I'll give you the last word. :D

Thanks for your Lib elietist thinking that I need to read more,
but having lived through 18 administrations, I'll go by the reality of my own experiences. :hihi:

Oh, and just to make it "fair"" I'll give you the last word. :D

It isn't elitist. I was referring to your own statement that you didn't have time to read and digest what Karl posted. It is specific data that shows what the actuality of those 18 administrations were as opposed to a perception. My problem is that many people are angry based on perception as opposed to the actuality of situations. At least be angry based on facts rather than perception.

I Understand your reasoning Zimmy but that was supposed
to be a joke between Karl and I.
Hope he laughed. :)

It is specific data that shows what the actuality of those 18 administrations were as opposed to a perception. My problem is that many people are angry based on perception as opposed to the actuality of situations. At least be angry based on facts rather than perception.

can you offer just a little more?...that barely qualifies as "generalized talking points"

what are "people" angry about?
what is their perception or misperception?
what is the reality and actuality based on facts?


before you answer that you should go back and read Detbuch's last post...it was pretty insightful :uhuh:

I've noticed that people that lean "socialistic" like to hold up their hands, shrug their shoulders and say " what socialism???...I have no idea what you are talking about"...I'm never sure if this is just a smug reply...or by some chance....they really don't know....

I Understand your reasoning Zimmy but that was supposed
to be a joke between Karl and I.
Hope he laughed. :)

Sorry I didn't catch that. That stuff happens in this format.

don't worry zimmy, JPI's response was just a typical cave dwelling bible thumping extreme right wing racist answer when given something to read..it hurts their little heads ;)

:wave: JPI ;)


Dave.... have the boys read it to ya! :D

don't worry zimmy, JPI's response was just a typical cave dwelling bible thumping extreme right wing racist answer when given something to read..it hurts their little heads ;)

:wave: JPI ;)


Dave.... have the boys read it to ya! :D



LOL Karl, not a bad idea, but my comprehension doesn't go above
"The 3 Little Pigs." :D

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress (http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html) interesting read as well

Perhaps no one has offered a meaning for your article because it is too difficult to find one. That Bloch selected a few sets of data from the many that might be relevant to whatever he is trying to show makes it impossible to come to any real conclusion, other than one that he might be trying to arrive at by selective choice of data.

The top marginal rate of taxation as a raw figure is meaningless since at the time that it was 90% those in that bracket were paying less due to exemptions and loopholes than they paid after Reagan's reform even though the top rate was lower. So the 90% figure is irrelevant for any analysis.

The use of Democrat and Republican as any consistent parameter of measurement or comparison supposes that the parties were consistently the same ideologically or politically throughout the time period he selected. Were the Bush Republicans the same party as the those in that 10 year period between 1910-20 that spent a low percentage of GDP and actually saw the National debt drop every year? Hardly. The Republicans of today are more like the Kennedy era Democrats. And what does that say about the evolution of the Democrat party if it is far to the left of the JFK era?

Nor does he factor spending as a ratio of GDP. That also has gone up consistently in his selected time period with no consistent differentiation between the ideologically and politically evolving parties. Astoundingly, the era he chose saw a dramatic rise in spending as a ratio of GDP from about 8% to over 40%.

Nor does he mention or factor in the influence of the" fourth branch" of modern U.S. government--the administrative agencies. Amazingly, the era he chose is almost precisely the Progressive era in American political history. It is during this progressive era that that fourth branch of government was created and has grown into the most prolific policy and legislating branch of the Federal Government. It is specifically this era that has seen the kind of government spending that he tries to analyze. And it is during this progressive era, which his chart shows, that the National debt consistently rose regardless of party in power.

The previous segment of American history from 1791 to about 1930 was the Constitutional era in which the Federal Government was constrained by Constitutional bounds. The late 19th century saw an influx of political administrative theories enter American academic study in political science. American Universities previously did not have such advanced studies since administrative agencies had not become a significant factor in American governance. Europe was where the progressive minded studied the subject and where they were influenced by the efficient administrative theories and systems in Germany and France. Woodrow Wilson was one of those students as well as Frank Goodnow, both of whom became leading scholars and proponents in the U.S. of the administrative system of govenance. The problem, in this country, with such a system, is the Constitution. It does not allow for the delegation of legislative power to unelected agencies. Goodnow viewed reverance for Constitutional law as "superstitious" and an obstacle to genuine political and administrative reform. A main problem, among others, is that the Constitution declared that an individual's rights are "unalienable." They cannot be taken away by government, which made it difficult for government to be in charge of private property. The Progressives believed, in contrast to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, that rights are not conferred by a creator, but by society. And they are determined by legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency rather than natural right, determines the sphere of individual freedom.

The Progressives were in absolute and open opposition to natural law and social compact theory which they claimed had no historical justification and the focus on individual liberty "retarded development" and expansion of government. They believed in "historical progress" and that we had historically arrived at a time when the fears of oppressive government that created the Constitution were no longer relevant, and that we could depend on administration of patriotic, objective, neutral, politically disinterested experts in their field of competence to administer the will of the people. So the idea of "consent of the governed" must be replaced by deference to the expertise of administration. Goodnow felt that politics is "polluted"and full of "bias" whereas administration is about the "truth." So the Constitutional separation of powers was an obstruction. That separation rested on three tenets:

1. The principle of non-delegation--Congress cannot delegate its legislative power. That power must be exercised soley by Congress.
2. Each branch of government is responsible for its power and cannot usurp the power of another.
3. The executive branch has the responsibility of administration.

Goodnow proposed, instead of the tripartite separation of legislative, executive, and judicial, a dual separation between politics and administration--politics would discover the needs of society, but expert technocrats would be appointed to manage in unbiased fashion those needs. Thus, the adminstrative function would be the relevant one and would even, by dint of its managerial power, craft regulations, codes, laws. He professed that the Court should also be adminstrative, not just umpires, but involved, through "interpretation" in making law. The latter 19th century to about 1930, was the seminal period of the progressive movement but remained mostly theoretical because the SCOTUS had not yet become what the progressive academia was developing in the schools of law. But a major step was taken with the 16th ammendment and its Federal grant of power to collect income tax.

While the Constitutional era prevailed the national debt was not the problem it is today. There were brief periods within budgets in the 1830's that the Federal Government was in fiscal surplus not merely as an expression of annual budget but that of its total debt. The lows of $33.7 thousand in 1835 and $37.5 thousand in 1837 were the deficits of those years. The Constitutional limitation on Central power, and its effect of power contradicting power, and placing legislation strictly in the hands of elected legislators, not only restricted the Government's ability to spend, it made it physically impossible to pump out reams of law. Of course, today, through the Federal bureaucracy we can easily add 40,000 pages to the Federal Register annually

The Great Depression was the opportunity for the Progressives to translate their theory of administrative government into actual practice. The movement had been openly espousing its theories of a "living" Constitution, and its dismissal of the original one as wholly inadequate for the times. Wilson had already written in 1885 that the nation had to move from constitutional to administrative questions, and Goodnow had written that "the great problems of modern public law are almost exclusively administrative in character." So FDR, with the nation in "crisis" was allowed to shift from those pesky Constitutional questions to the creation of unconstitutional agencies that have since grown in number to the hundreds and have gone even beyond the scope of being a "partner" with politics, but actual spheres of government possessing legislative, executive, and judicial power--Madison's definition of tyranny. And the universities had provided a host of scholars, lawyers, and eventual judges that embraced the progressive view of an outdated Constitution that, in Goodnow's words is "worse than useless." They were available for Roosevelt to pack his Court with willing accomplices, and they couched their decisions in legal language that pretended to "interpret" the Constitution, but knew they were stretching and outright contradicting the original language and intent in order to allow the massive progressive "reforms."

The Court has since abandoned the principle of non-delegation that was the main tenet of separation of powers, thus vitiating the other two tenets, and has thus allowed the expansion of Federal power beyond all original intention through its myriad of independent regulatory agencies. And the Court has become, as Goodnow wished, not merely an umpire, but a legislator. All this in the name of a more "efficient" administration of the "will of the people" for their own good. What has been eliminated, for efficiency, is that slow legislative process of debate among differing legislators elected by differing constituencies. Somehow, "the will of the people" is known by a few, select, "experts" administering through executive agencies, and they are free to impose that will back on the people who have no say, who are not asked for the consent of the governed. Elena Kagan, one of Obama's Supreme Court appointees, came from the school of administrative law, and she posited in a Harvard Law Review article that "We live today in an era of presidential administration."

It is ironic that progressive ideology will say that force in foreign relations is not necessary, it is even counter productive--that it is better, even the only way, to use diplomacy, to negotiate, to lead by example, but, when dealing with ones own citizens, it is more "efficient" to administrate from the center rather than deliberate amongst the differing representatives of the people.

Would not this fourth uncontrolled, unelected, administrative branch which creates the bulk of laws and regulations and which is so little discussed, and which has facilitated the shift of both parties to the progressive left, have a role in that massive Federal debt and those huge annual deficits--regardless of which "party" is in power?