I'm working toward the bottom of the 6th page of the transcript today, still on debate #1. But hey, at least it's the second half of the first debate. And, surprisingly enough, I'm finding that I'm really enjoying going through and really examining closely what the candidates have to say. Twisted? Maybe. But I'm learning quite a bit, and that's a good thing. The parts of the Constitution pertaining to Congress have been where my understanding is the strongest; I've done the most study there. Doing these debates and the reading that I've been doing in that America's Constitution book has made me look more closely at the Presidency. I might even (someday) figure out what the Founders were aiming for when they created the Electoral College, and what sort of changes have been made since then. Figuring that out would be cool! But in the mean time, looking closely at the Presidency is pretty interesting, and this has been an instructional exercise for me.
Obama: Social Security is structurally sound.
Good grief. Really? Does he really expect that anyone will believe this? Why would you even say it, when it's a regular feature of the news that Social Security is under water, they've been taking from the trust funds, and the money's going to dry up? I certainly have no expectation that I'll ever receive a red cent. Social Security is a tax, not an insurance fund. It is important to note that the Supreme Court decision Helvering v. Davis(1937) held that Social Security is Constitutional only because the funds go into the general fund, like income taxes do, and are not earmarked in any way, so Social Security, like Obamacare, is [dubiously] Constitutional under Congress's power to tax. So, maybe what Mr. Obama is saying here is that he approves of the use of Social Security for the collection of tax moneys. I don't know. But, if you are playing along with the fiction that Social Security exists to help the poor and the elderly, as sort of a public insurance fund, then this comment makes no sense whatsoever.
Now there is a whole bunch of back and forth about ways that they want to (or don't want to) change Social Security, Medicaid, and how the other guy's going to cause huge expense and loss to a lot of deserving people. The two of them sound very much alike on this topic. They differ on the exact means, and Mr. Romney does seem to support more private involvement than Mr. Obama, but in general, both seem to be saying, "Federal involvement is necessary and here is how I think it should happen." I've already said that I think that Federal involvement is unconstitutional and explained my reasons for that opinion, so I'm pretty much skipping this section, except to say that I realize that fixing our nation so that we both care for our elderly and poor and also obey the highest law of our land isn't easy. And it's probably not something that can be fixed overnight. The New Deal started us on this path 100 years ago; we're not going to be able to turn things around over night. But I think we can - and should - look for ways to do away with government entitlement programs. Private entities, faith groups, and families are those who should be stepping up to this challenge. I think that we will all stand a little taller and be a whole lot more free if we do it. And I believe that we can do as good or better job without the inefficient, wasteful, corrupt government dictating to us what kind of care we are giving and receiving.
So. On to page 7 and a new question.
Question: what is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy
right now? Is there too much? And in your case, Mr. President, is there —
should there be more?
Ah, yes, this is a good question. I am of the opinion that a huge portion of our federal government is unconstitutional and, if those things are to be done by government at all, they should be done by the States, in ways that the individual States deem best. Since all federal bills originate in Congress, the first place that I look to see if it's something that ought to be done is Article I Section 8, the Powers of Congress. I quoted it in full in part 5, but Madison summed it up this way:
Madison: The [federal government] will be exercised principally on external
objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the
power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to
the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course
of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the
internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
It is useful to understand that the reason we call our states, States, is because that's what they are. At the time of the Declaration of Independence the colonies claimed nationhood. Massachusetts and Virginia and the rest asserted their right to be as independent and sovereign as England, Spain and France. And, although we speak of them as the colonies and then as the beginning of the United States, there was a period where there were thirteen individual nations here on this continent. Which is, as I understand it, why we use the same word for our States as you might use for the State of Uganda: it was the same sort of entity. This was such a revelation to me when I realized it! It changed the whole way that I think about the States that make up our nation. They were independent states which decided to unite together for certain, specific reasons outlined in the Preamble, who very deliberately and specifically retained the right to sovereign internal rule. This idea was so important that two of the amendments in the Bill of Rights deal with it.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it it the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As free and independent States, each of the States already had the sovereign right to govern themselves - and, according to Madison's quote above, they would largely retain that, yet choose to present a united face to the world under the Constitution. They also agreed to play nicely among themselves. It's my understanding that the reason that the Congress was able to regulate trade among the States that joined the Union was to avoid things like interstate trade wars. Look at the limited nature of the trade authority that the states delegated to the federal government (Article I Section 8) when it was created:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes...
Constitutionally, the answer to a question that boils down to, "How big should the government be?" should be very interesting. Let's see what the candidates have to say. Mr. Romney got to go first on this question.
Romney: Regulation is essential. You can't have a free market work if you don't
have regulation. As a businessperson, I had to have — I need to know the
regulations. I needed them there. You couldn't have people opening up
banks in their — in their garage and making loans. I mean, you have to
have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free
economy has good regulation. At the same time, regulation can become
excessive. Lehrer: Is it excessive now, do you think? Romney: In some places, yes. Other places, no. ... No, it can become out of date. And what's happened with some of the
legislation that's been passed during the president's term, you've seen
regulation become excessive, and it's hurt — it's hurt the economy. Let
me give you an example. Dodd-Frank was passed. And it includes within it a number of
provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are
harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too
big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal
government. This is the biggest kiss that's been given to — to New York
banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There've been
122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd- Frank.
Now, banks are not an area where I have much background knowledge. The first thing that I need to know is, "What is Dodd-Frank?" So I'm looking at Wikipedia's entry. Turns out that Dodd-Frank is a major reform to the financial sector, and it arose out of legislation that the Obama Administration recommended to Congress. Mr. Obama intended it to be a "sweeping overhaul of the United States financial regulatory system, a
transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the
Great Depression." Wikipedia's entry has a criticism at the top, saying it is too technical, and I found it to be so. Taking Mr. Romney's statement about banks being ruled "too big to fail" and "effectively guaranteed by the federal government" at face value, I'd have to say that I question if those provisions are Constitutional. But his overall point here, illustrated by the specific example of Dodd-Frank, is that while some regulation is needed, too much is damaging. In general, I'd have to agree with that point, and some of that regulation could legitimately take place at the federal level, given how much of finance takes place across State lines, though as I understand it, all activity that takes place exclusively within a State should be the exclusive domain of the State government.
Mr. Obama comments on the Dodd-Frank example, and then he says this:
Obama: And so the question is: Does anybody out there think that the big
problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of
Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate.
But that's not what I believe.
Now, I'll be upfront here: I'm a small government girl. I don't really understand what they're talking about, but I'd rather err on the side of small government. It has been my observation that our government is, generally speaking, many times larger than the Founders intended it to be. Orders of magnitude larger. So my personal bias is to go with the small government option while I learn things; I find that tends to be more in line with the Constitution, once I figure out the question enough to have a fully-formed opinion on the matter.
Next up: Obamacare. I think that one's going to deserve its own post, so I'll end here.
I'm working toward the bottom of the 5th page of the transcript today, still on debate #1. But it's not election day yet, so I may yet get through some more.
Obama: The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don't get.
I have issues with saying that permitting companies to keep money they earn is "corporate welfare." Bailouts are corporate welfare. Those companies actually got money from taxpayers to add to the corporate bank accounts. But deductions are taxes not paid. That's not the same thing. Not in the least. Not that it has a lot to do with the Constitution, but it strikes me as a dishonest way of looking at things. How generous. The government graciously allowed them to keep that deducted portion of their earnings. Balloney! That money rightly belongs to the person that earned it, or to the corporate shareholders. It doesn't belong to the government! This kind of thinking drives me crazy.
So, in part 4, I looked at where Mr. Obama accused Mr. Romney of wanting to send Medicare to the states. And, sending it to the states is a Constitutionally sound idea. But apparently that's not what Mr. Romney had in mind:
Romney: And, finally, Medicaid to states? I'm not quite sure where that came in, except this, which is, I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you're going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.
I supposed that you could say that at least the States are controlling what happens with this money, but the reality is, the entire Medicaid program is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Enumerated Powers that permits Congress to spend money on that stuff. I went over the Enumerated Powers in part 3, but maybe it's time for a recap. The candidates certainly seem to need to review it.
Article I Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, sometimes called the
Enumerated Powers. These include the following, and only the following:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform rules on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post-roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses on land and water;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, be cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; And,
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
James Madison said
this in Federalist 45, in response to fears that Congress would overstep its
bounds:
Madison: 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; with which last the
power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to
the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course
of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the
internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
In other words, if it ain't on the list, they're not supposed to
do it. And charitible efforts, such as Medicare, are not on the list. And in case that list isn't clear enough, Mr. Madison specifically addressed this sort of question:
Madson: I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Mr. Madison being the "father" of the Constitution, it seems to me that he would know what is and is not Constitutional. Until we change it, the highest law of the land does not allow this sort of program. Certainly this has been ignored for a long time now, but that doesn't make it right. So, while returning control of the money to the States is a step in the right direction, returning the whole thing to the States would be even better. However, both candidates are clear: this is not what they are trying to do. It is worthy of note here, I think, that in that potential 30% reduction that Mr. Obama is worried about loosing if control is given back to the States is going to be a huge amount of bureaucracy and red tape. That stuff is very expensive, and contributes nothing to the quality of care people are getting, so I'm thinking that the reduction that he's accusing Mr. Romney of supporting (though Mr. Romney says he does not) would not be nearly as catastrophic as Mr. Obama would like voters to think. I think it likely that, between the reduced tax burden increasing the self-sufficiency of voters, and the reduced bureaucracy, it might even be a change that increased the quality and availability of care while reducing costs. Government is legendary for its inefficiency and corruption, and on those grounds alone a poor choice for our charitable dollars.
Romney: But — but the right — the right approach is one which relies on the
brilliance of our people and states, not the federal government.
This principle is key to understanding the Constitution. The whole concept of our government was radical in that the Founders' theory of government is that the powers of government are derived from the body of the people - not the other way around. I've been reading from America's Constitution: a Biography again, and Mr. Amar has this to say about the presidency, as outlined in Article II of our Constitution:
Article II obliged the Founders to venture deep into uncharted territory. The young continent needed a president who would be far more than a legislative presiding officer, a state governor, or a prime minister, but far less than a king. Nothing quite like this new office had ever existed. Nevertheless, as Americans in 1787 tried to envision a republican head of state who could protect them against the old King George without becoming a new King George, they did have a particular George in mind. (page 131)
Our president was never meant to be a king. In fact, he was specifically, deliberately NOT a king. And his powers, rather that being derived from "divine right" or intrinsic to the office in some other way, are delegated powers which originate in the People, rather than in the government. This concept is crucial. It is the hinge on which the question, "Is this proper for government to do?" swings upon. In his essay, The Proper Role of Government, Ezra Taft Benson said it this way:
Benson: The important thing to keep in mind is
that the people who have created their government can give to that
government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first
place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So,
the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and
every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any
organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But,
it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles
which underlie the proper function of government.
So, in his comment above, Mr. Romney got things absolutely, exactly Constitutionally right. Relying on the brilliance of our people and the States is precisely what the Founders had in mind.
I am not keeping up with the sheer mass of debate material. It's not going to happen. But I like looking at the debates, and a number of my friends have said kind things to me about the posts I did about the debate, leading me to think that it's useful to others when I share my thoughts, so I thought I'd have a go at another section here on my blog. If you're a real glutton for punishment, you can have a look at the previous installments too:
So. Here goes. I'm starting on page 5 of the transcript.
Obama: It means that Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but
effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help
for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with
disabilities. And — and that is not a right strategy for us to move forward.
Alright. I've said before, I am firmly convinced that government is not only not the best way to deal with doing charitable works, but it's not a particularly moral method of getting that important work done. (Please note, this is NOT the same as saying that it's not important; it is.) In addition, it's not Constitutional. There is no authorization in the Enumerated Powers for Congress to do this sort of thing. I laid out the details in part 3. But, as a quick recap, I offer the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitutionally correct course of action is to return this power to the States. Mr. Obama is, Constitutionally speaking, out of line in his comments. And, he's invoking some very emotional imagery in his arguments, which is a tactic I never appreciate. While compassion is important, it is very easy to become blinded by emotion when discussing these things, and to the extent that emotion rules, reason is excluded and nothing constructive can happen. Calm collected reason gets a bad rap, but it doesn't need to be uncompassionate, whereas, the mind ruled by emotion cannot think clearly. I consider it bad form for Mr. Obama to make such a blatantly emotional appeal, particularly when he does so in defiance of the highest law of our land.
Next question: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles? Do you support Simpson-Bowles?
OK. I first have to figure out what is "Simpson-Bowles." Turns out that it's a plan for reducing debt. I read a Business Insider synopsis here, and they have a link to a more technical synopsis here. It comes from a commission created by President Obama, and Mr. Ryan served as a member. They suggest avoiding our debt crisis by both cutting back government and raising taxes. Apparently, neither party likes it at all, but some version may be used anyway to try to avoid the looming financial cliff at the end of the year, according to the Business Insider synopsis.
Romney: I have my own plan. It's not the same as Simpson- Bowles.
He never says any more than that about his own plan, other than he doesn't want to see taxes raised; he's distracted by talking about Mr. Obama's performance and plan, so I can't say anything here about how Constitutional his plan is, other than to point out (yet again) that the President, alone, has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can only sign or veto the bills that Congress sends him. Other than that, it's not his job.
Lehrer: Mr. President? Obama: Well, we've had this discussion before. Lehrer: About the idea that in order to reduce the deficit, there has to be revenue in addition to cuts. Obama: There has to be revenue in addition to cuts.
I'm not sure what this means in relation to Simpson-Bowles. Once again, Mr. Obama is more interested in talking about Mr. Romney's plan than his own. He does this a lot. At least this time, he's saying what he wants to add, rather than just saying that Mr. Romney's plan is a bad one. And he's making the same Constitutional misstep that Mr. Romney just made: the President doesn't really have the power to say he will raise or lower taxes. That's Congress's job. Unless they are both talking about the use of the signing and veto powers, this is a conversation that belongs in a Congressional candidate's comments or debate.
Once again, Mr. Romney feels like Mr. Obama is misrepresenting his position, so he clarifies. He does want more revenue, just not from raising taxes. He wants to see existing taxes pull in more. I don't know what this has to do with Simpson-Bowles, but it's useful information for the voters nonetheless.
Romney: Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher
pay, paying more taxes. That's how we get growth and how we balance the
budget. But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of
work, you'll never get there. You'll never balance the budget by raising
taxes. Spain — Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government.
We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government. I don't
want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go down the path of growth
that puts Americans to work with more money coming in because they're
working.
Spain recently got another bailout, and is struggling. But even without that example, 42%?? Oi. (It's worthy of note that the candidates don't really get to look up their figures to make sure they're perfectly correct, so there is likely some human error on both sides.) If that figure is even close to correct then we are in serious need of some major cutbacks in the size of our government. I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize we had that much government. Oi. That is not cool.
But, now that I think about it, it's also not surprising. We have a number of whole departments, entire agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution. Among them are the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, and there's others as well. Basically, if you can't find it in the Enumerated Powers, the feds shouldn't be doing it. It sounds here like Mr. Romney is looking at reducing the size of government, but he doesn't say how. There's no specifics. Politically, it's a smart move; people say they want less, but when it comes right down to it, lots of folks are pretty attached to "causes" that they feel are only possible through our oversized government. So, reducing or eliminating some of these unconstitutional departments is perceived as an attack on children (the Department of Education) or the environment (the EPA), and is usually also denounced because it does create some temporary job losses. However, if you are to reduce the size of government, that must inevitably mean that some people are going to have to move from the public sector to the private, and not necessarily on their own time table. But Mr. Romney doesn't really go into any detail here, so there's nothing to approve (or disapprove) of, other than I think that the idea of reducing government is excellent and likely very Constitutionally sound.
OK. It's late again. This is interesting, but I've gotta sleep; those boys of mine will be needing me.
If you're a real glutton for punishment, you can have a look at the previous installments too: Part 1 Part 2
Otherwise, you can just read part 3 of my attempt at responsible citizenship. I'm looking at the debate and trying to measure the candidates' positions against the Constitution. I still consider myself a student of the Constitution, but even a student can make an effort! This is mine. I'm still working from page 3 of the transcript.
OK. So I'm still waiting for Mr. Obama to say something of substance, but in this section he's talking about Mr. Romney's plan, rather than his own. Much to Mr. Romney's frustration, since he feels like Mr. Obama is misrepresenting his position. But really, neither of them say anything new, and particularly not as it relates to the Constitution, for the rest of page 3. So. On to page 4. Aaaand the rest of the section on this first question is all back-and-forth. He's going to do this. No I'm not.
Well, he's going to do this. Nope, that's not it. It's really not very interesting.
Obama: Bill Clinton tried the approach that I'm talking about. We created 23
million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did
very well.
I'm going back onto page 3, trying to figure out what this "approach" is that he's supposedly talking about. It's hard. Mostly he's talking about how Mr. Romney's plan won't work. There is this, from the bottom of page 3:
Obama: Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging
small-business growth. So at the same time that my tax plan has already
lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small
businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rates —
the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.
Here we have Mr. Obama taking credit for an act of Congress. It's a pretty typical way for Americans and their Presidents to speak; we credit the President with far more power than he should have- and in the process our language gives him more power than he should have, because it sets up expectations, and then over-reach feels very normal because it matches those expectations. Language matters. That's one of the reasons that one of the final steps in creating the Constitution was a committee on style, and one of the members was a very good with grammar. In any case, IF those taxes did come down (and I said in part 2 that I'm pretty skeptical about this), then that's something that he needs to share credit for. The President of the United States, Constitutionally speaking, does not have the power to wave a magic wand and make taxes lower. (Though they get away with murder in those executive orders.) He can suggest, and then if Congress passes his bill, he can sign, but he certainly does not do it all by himself. He is overstating his role here, at the very least. And, this claim makes me want a fact-checker. Quite frankly, I don't believe him. Can these tax cuts he refers to possibly be enough to make a net lowering of taxes after one factors in the tax increase that is Obamacaree? I find that unlikely.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Mr. Clinton's presidency to be able to tell if this is the approach that he says that he's talking about either. Mr. Clinton served prior to my interest in politics; I was still in high school when he took office. This reference is frustratingly vague.
But here comes the second question:
And the question is this, what are the differences between the two of
you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this
country?
This question is somewhat better than the first one (see part 1). But still, the question relies heavily on the President making recommendations to Congress that Congress actually acts upon. Or, he could veto bills that are too expensive. I don't hear about a whole lot of action for the veto pen. But it could probably be used pretty effectively to reduce our deficit. Make Congress pass by super-majority the stuff the President felt was going to run up the deficit. The problem that makes that not very practical is that they make these huge mega-bills that run to 1000 or 2000 pages have so much crammed into them that there's always something in there that the President can be crucified for vetoing. So. Still a flawed question, in my opinion. But better than the first. Let's see what the candidates have to say. Looks like Mr. Romney is first this time.
Romney: Good. I'm glad you raised that, and it's a — it's a critical
issue. I think it's not just an economic issue, I think it's a moral
issue. I think it's, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep
spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going
to be passed on to the next generation and they're going to be paying
the interest and the principal all their lives. And the amount of debt we're adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.
I'm going to agree with what he says here. It's not moral to go into debt for someone else. That's slavery. The Founders, those "wise men, raised by the Lord," would not be impressed.
George Washington: Avoid occasions of expense. . . and avoid likewise
the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but
by vigorous exertions to discharge the debts, not throwing upon
posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.
Alexander Hamilton: Allow a government to decline paying its debts and you overthrow all
public morality — you unhinge all the principles that preserve the
limits of free constitutions.Nothing can more affect national prosperity
than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt
and to avoid as much as possibly the incurring of any new debt.
Benjamin Franklin: When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.
It's that power over liberty that concerns me, both my own liberty, and that of my children and future grandchildren. The Founders knew that sometimes the nation would need to take on debts, but they are clear that they hoped it would always be short-term. The fact is, our debt should be telling us that, as a nation, we are living beyond our means. When other nations buy our debt, we are giving them power to dictate our actions - lest the stop buying, or require payment unexpectedly. It also places us over a barrel if they stop buying the debt. What does the household, behind in its credit, do when the creditors say, "That's enough?" It's never very pretty. What will happen when it's not a household, but our nation itself? These sorts of cuts are not fun, but they have to happen. So. Mr. Romney elaborates on his plan for reducing our debt:
Romney: So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways
that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number
two is to cut spending. And number is to grow the economy, because if
more people work in a growing economy, they're paying taxes, and you can
get the job done that way. The presidents would — president would prefer raising taxes. I
understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the
rate of growth. And you could never quite get the job done. I want to
lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time. What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will
eliminate all programs by this test, if they don't pass it: Is the
program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?
And if not, I'll get rid of it. Obamacare's on my list. ... I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to
stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too.
But I'm not going to — I'm not going to keep on spending money on things
to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one. Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I
think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to
the state.
I think Mr. Romney's test makes a lot of sense: "Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" But I think there should be another one, even before this test: "Is it Constitutional?" We could save a ton by getting rid of unconstitutional stuff at the federal level. Both of the examples that he cites, Obamacare and PBS, are things that fail both of these tests. He also talks about sending stuff back to the States. Again, I like this. It's in line with the Tenth Amendment, though he doesn't actually cite that as part of his reasoning. In not doing that, he leaves some question in my mind: is this a purely practical move, or is it motivated by a desire to conform to the Constitution? I don't think he's going to answer that question here; that sort of question is not popular to ask, and it makes politicians very uncomfortable to talk about it. (It's amazing the number of "cite your Constitutional authority" letters that I send to Congress that never get answered.) They don't like it.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Romney: Number three, I'll make government more efficient and to cut back the
number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks
will be done through attrition, by the way.
This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget.
This is something that I think that he could actually do, without needing Congress. It'll cause a whole lot of kicking and screaming, because although nearly every single person I've ever talked to agrees that government is too large, when you start looking at what to cut the consensus seems to be, "Not in my backyard!" When it comes right down to making the actual cuts, people are inevitably happy with the specifics. This is short-sighted. Government produces nothing. People whose jobs in government are eliminated not only are contributing to a reduction of the tax burden (that's where their pay and benefits come from), but they are also returned to the private sector, where they can get a job, or start a business. Either one of those things will contribute to economic growth. If, along with cutting employees, Mr. Romney also reduced the regulatory burden of red tape and hoops that businesses have to jump through, he would ease the transition of these displaced workers back into the private sector. Doing this thing by attrition isn't very efficient, but it would effectively reduce the backlash of the reductions.
Next is Mr. Obama's turn. He starts with some mushy, "those increases aren't my fault" rhetoric. And, to a point, there's some legitimacy in that. It was Mr. Bush who started the bailouts. I was stunned at how seamless the hand-off was on those bailouts. The inauguration of Mr. Obama never caused a single hiccup in the process, near as I could tell. But he could have stopped them. There's been scandal after scandal come out of those bailouts. At the end of the day, making my neighbor pay to keep my failing business open isn't right. If I try to do that on my own authority, it's called theft or extortion or something similar, and I go to jail. But, those who support the bailouts want us to believe that it's somehow morally OK when the government makes my neighbors pay to prop up my business. I don't buy it.
Obama: When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar
deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were
paid for on a credit card; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a
whole bunch of programs that were not paid for; and then a massive
economic crisis. And despite that, what we've said is, yes, we had to take some
initial emergency measures to make sure we didn't slip into a Great
Depression, but what we've also said is, let's make sure that we are
cutting out those things that are not helping us grow.
Constitutionally, there's problems with these bailouts -the "initial emergency measures"- as well. The Constitution does not authorize that kind of expenditure. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, sometimes called the Enumerated Powers. These include:
collect taxes, duties, imposts & excises, pay debts; provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
borrowing money
regulating (as distinct from engaging in) commerce between the States
establishing uniform rules for naturalization and bankruptcies
to coin & regulate the value of money, and standardize weights and measures
punish counterfeiting
establish post offices and post-roads
establish copyright law
create inferior courts
define and punish felonies on the seas and against the laws of nations
declare war, grant letters of marque & reprisal, and decide what to do with captures
raise & support armies, with a 2 year limit on appropriations
maintain a navy
create rules for military forces
organize & regulate the militia
all legislative powers for Washington DC and other federal properties
make laws needed to execute these powers
James Madison said this in Federalist 45, in response to fears that Congress would overstep its bounds:
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; with which last the power of taxation will for
the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the
several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and
properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement,
and prosperity of the State.
In other words, if it ain't on the list, they're not supposed to do it. And, regarding the money they collected in taxes, the Constitution specifies that, "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." They can get away with the income tax being uneven because the scammed the people into approving the Fourteenth Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
It's my understanding that the income tax, when first approved, was to apply only to the top 1% or 5% or so, and the reasoning was that they could afford it, so they should "contribute." Funny how the tax has migrated down to where around 53% are paying now, and the language hasn't changed: "Let the rich pay their share!"
In any case, I'm not seeing any justification for the bailouts in the powers of Congress. I don't see a moral justification for it either. As I said before: we do not force our neighbors to pay for our failing businesses, which is exactly what happened with the bailouts. The companies just had a government middle-man doing the collecting of the money they used to prop up failed businesses. It's theft. Certainly, had Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama and the Congresses serving with them allowed the propped up companies to fail, things would have been unpleasant for a while. Likely very unpleasant. But I don't believe that it would have been the absolute disaster that they claim. There would have been people who would have stepped in to fill the vacuum. New companies, with business models that actually work would have appeared and, given the opportunity to behave like a free market, the market would have righted itself. And we would have avoided a whole lot of unconstitutional action by our government. Even had the President recommended a law authorizing the bailouts (and I don't know where the thing originated, but I'm looking specifically at the presidency here), the Congress should have checked him. They should have said, "This is beyond the scope of our Enumerated Powers; we cannot do this." Instead, the whole lot of them, including both presidents in question, violated their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. And, in the process, we got a whole lot of bad investments and a huge increase in debt that we now have to pay off.
Obama: So 77 government programs, everything from aircrafts that the Air
Force had ordered but weren't working very well, 18 government — 18
government programs for education that were well-intentioned, not
weren't helping kids learn, we went after medical fraud in Medicare and
Medicaid very aggressively, more aggressively than ever before, and have
saved tens of billions of dollars, $50 billion of waste taken out of
the system. And I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars
out of our discretionary domestic budget. That's the largest cut in the
discretionary domestic budget since Dwight Eisenhower. Now, we all know that we've got to do more. And so I've put forward a
specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It's on a website. You can
look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional
revenue, paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who
have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to
reduce the deficit.
I'm not impressed when he talks about "saving tens of billions of dollars." According to the Debt Clock people, we're adding some 3.9 billion in debt per day. And, since we haven't had a budget passed in a couple years now, I'm not sure what he's talking about when he says that they've cut a trillion dollars from the "budget." There hasn't been one to cut or add to or anything. Our national finances are a dismal mess, and to make up the slack? They print more money. (Which is another thing that's probably unconstitutional; I don't see any authorization to delegate the making of money. But that's Congress's bust, and that's another post for another day.)
Mr. Obama's last line from this section could use some additional scrutiny:
Obama: You can
look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional
revenue, paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who
have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to
reduce the deficit.
Now, when you look at the original text of the Constitution, they have a principle in there to govern the money collected: equality.
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (Emphasis added)
This principle was abandoned with the Fourteenth Amendment, but the wisdom of the Founders was that we should be equal before the law, even when they came collecting. At least, that's the way I understand it. I admit to being a bit fuzzy on the specifics of all those different ways of raising money. Isn't it strange how often the people who say they champion "equal rights" do it only in specific cases? So very often, those are the same people who howl the loudest, a la Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements, for the rich to "pay their share." What happened to equal protection for the rich? And, what is the motivation for working hard to become rich (and employ people) when you know that you can't keep what you make?
One of the thinkers that the Founders looked to, and that Ezra Taft Benson quotes repeatedly in his essay, The Proper Role of Government, is Frederic Bastiat. He had a name for this sort of take-from-the-rich behavior: legalized plunder. I blogged about it in more detail here and here. If it's a concept that you're not familiar with I highly recommend giving it some serious thought. The basic idea is that theft is theft, whether you do it yourself or you get the government to do it for you.
Bastiat: See if the law takes from persons what belongs to them and gives it other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Thomas Jefferson: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or
whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to
violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to
everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by
it.”
In short, what Mr. Obama proposes may, in fact, be Constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, but it still violates the spirit of the original document. It's not just, and, according to the Preamble, establishing justice is one of the primary purposes of the document. It's not the way that honest, free men ought to behave. We can do better than that. We must do better than that. We can fix our finances without resorting to bullying and stealing from those who have done well for themselves.
That brings me to the end of page 4, and I think it's quite enough for one post.
So, yesterday, I started looking at the debate. A couple of my friends on Facebook asked me to do more with it, so I'll see what I can do. It's kind of fun to look at what the candidates say and compare it to the Constitution. Due to limited time for this project, I'm taking them both at face value. I know that there are fact-checking articles out there. I'm only looking at them and comparing what they claim with my best understanding of the Constitution and original Founding Principle. But it's not the sort of comparison that I see happening anywhere else, so hopefully it's useful to someone besides just me.
Romney: Middle-income families are being crushed.
And so the question is how to get them going again. And I've described it. It's energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan.
But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas I'll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we've got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.
OK. Much of this I looked at near the end of part one. Last night, I wasn't very happy with Mr. Romney's comments about education, because federal involvement is unconstitutional. However, if by "we've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers" he's talking about a plan for removing education from the federal level and returning control to the states, then he's talking stuff that I like to hear! To really do this, all federal funding would have to be done away with, in order to do away with the "strings" that always come with money. (Obviously, that would need to be done over a period of time to avoid chaos.) That would be right in line with the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One thing I'm noticing about the debate is that the time limits don't allow the sort of elaboration that would really make the answers to these questions meaningful. You see that here. I am cautiously optimistic about Mr. Romney's comments here. They could mean that he intends to follow the Constitution. But they don't have to mean that, and our politicians have been betraying the people for a very, very long time. So long that neither they nor the people generally think a thing of it. The wording here is vague. There is value in seeing what the candidates say in the moment, but it's not the sort of format that allows for a complete answer that could be really scrutinized.
Romney: The third area, energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed
out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not
due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has
happened on private land, not on government land. On government land,
your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.
If I'm president, I'll double them, and also get the — the oil from
offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada. And, by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue
to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting
crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy
independent so we can create those jobs.
Again, this speaks to over-reach, or at the very least, over-stating the power that the President legitimately has. Certainly, he can propose these ideas to Congress, and certainly he can reign in, downsize, and (hopefully) begin to disband unconstitutional agencies such as the EPA, but there are limits to what a single man can do. Even the President of the United States. And that is by design.
Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power then, let no
more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution."
Romney: And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I'm not looking to
cut massive taxes and to reduce the — the revenues going to the
government. My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut
that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds
to the deficit. But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income
Americans. And I — and to do that, that also means I cannot reduce the
burden paid by high-income Americans. So any — any language to the
contrary is simply not accurate.
Again, all tax code arises in the House of Representatives. The president usually sends a proposal, which is permitted under Article II Section 3, but the House chooses if they are going to use some, all, or none of it. To say "I will" or "I won't" relies heavily on the Congress actually accepting his proposals, and, to my way of thinking, implies that he plans to use the veto power if they don't do what he asks. This is within his rights; the veto is authorized in Article I Section 7:
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. (Emphasis added)
So the president does have the power to do what he says he plans to do... sort of. It takes a good deal of intestinal fortitude to face the political storm that would come from vetoing a budget bill, particularly at the point we are at, where we haven't had a budget for so long. Does Mr. Romney have that fortitude of character? I don't know.
Obama: Well, I think — let's talk about taxes, because I think it's
instructive. Now, four years ago, when I stood on this stage, I said
that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that's exactly
what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.
OK, I know I said I was focusing on the Constitution, but the BS Alarm is going absolutely nuts over this one. It's Obamacare that's the problem. Either Obamacare is, as the Supreme Court ruled, the biggest tax hike in history, or it's unconstitutional on its face and should have been struck down. (After all, the Supreme Court is filled by fallible men, and also able to make mistakes and misjudgements in their rulings - that's why they periodically overturn previous decisions.) I personally believe that it's unconstitutional on its face, but for Mr. Obama to keep it as the crowning achievement of his presidency he has to keep all of it, including its status as a tax hike. He can't have it both ways, even though he wants to. Doesn't work. As long as he keeps Obamacare, he raised taxes on middle class families and every one else too. Claiming otherwise is dishonest, and dishonesty is NOT a good character trait in one who hopes to be the president. Not that it's an unusual trait in politicians; but it an undesirable one. We need men of virtue in our nation. We need them among the people at large, and we need the best of them as our leaders.
John Adams: "The only foundation of a free
Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our
People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their
Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting
Liberty."
Alright. I'd hoped to keep things more even between the two of them, but it's not turned out that way in this section. Hopefully Mr. Obama will say something about his own plans soon, rather than just commenting on Mr. Romney's stuff. But I've noticed that he doesn't like to say much about his plans, so we shall see.
So, the presidential candidates had a big debate, and now I'm trying to look at it. There's a lot going on right now: books that need to be organized, kids that need to be taught and fed, church stuff that needs to get done. Sleep. I like sleep. But, politics need to have at least a little time too, least we loose freedoms. So I'm looking at the debate.
Here's the transcript that I'm using. I like to look at the printed words because they're less distracting; it's easier to look at them coolly and logically, and I try to avoid getting caught up in the emotionalism of it all, or falling into the trap of spending time thinking too much about who looks more "presidential" or other things of that nature that really don't matter at all. What I want to know is this: how do the candidates' words measure up against the Constitution? What might the Founders say about the positions that our current candidates are taking? That's my issue. That's what I vote on. I want the Constitution, and freedom.
So. First question, from the 2nd page of the transcript:
Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Let's start the economy, segment one,
and let's begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the
two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?
Already, I'm feeling a little frustrated. Jobs are not the president's responsibility. His duties are clearly laid out in Article II of the Constitution, and they include:
being Commander in Chief of the Military.
with the advice and consent of the Senate, he makes treaties, nominates ambassadors & other public officials, judges
fills vacancies in the Senate
periodically informs Congress as to the state of the Union
recommends laws for Congress's consideration
in extraordinary cases he may convene one or both houses of Congress, and if they can't agree upon adjournment, he makes that decision
receives ambassadors and other public ministers
takes care that laws are faithfully executed
commissions officers for the United States.
I'm just not feeling the whole President-as-job-creator thing. Maybe it could come under recommending laws to Congress. Maybe. But then Congress would still have to get its collective act together and actually pass the thing. There's tons more to it that just "The President says so." But, in general, I feel like we ascribe too much power to the Presidency. He's just one guy. He's not supposed to be an all-powerful leader capable of fixing all our nation's ills. Our government is deliberately limited because to give a single man that kind of power to build also gives him the power to destroy, and that was something that the Founders were acutely aware of and cautious to avoid.
But, let's look at the responses anyhow. Maybe one of them said something useful.
Obama: You know, four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis
since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost, the auto
industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial system had frozen
up. And because of the resilience and the determination of the American
people, we've begun to fight our way back. Over the last 30 months,
we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto
industry has come roaring back. And housing has begun to rise. But we all know that we've still got a lot of work to do. And so the
question here tonight is not where we've been, but where we're going.
OK. I'm not feeling the "recovery." Color me skeptical. Everything is more expensive than it was 4 years ago. And my husband is still at the same crappy job with a crappy boss... because the folks who want to hire are either not paying a wage we can afford to live on, or they won't consider him because we don't already live in the area the job is in.Talking about the financial crisis in the past tense seems unduly optimistic.
Obama: Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed
towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations, that we'll be better
off. I've got a different view.
Silly boy. Let the Mr. Romney state his own position. Don't waste your time on what he thinks before he's even had a chance to tell us. Tell me about what you are going to do. (Though your synopsis of his plan sounds pretty good to me.)
Obama: I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think it's
important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that
we change our tax code to make sure that we're helping small businesses
and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take
some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild
America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us
to make these critical investments.
Federal involvement in education is wholly unconstitutional. It's a states' matter. If the states want to do that, let them. But until and unless we make an Amendment to the Constitution, we should remember the wisdom of George Washington:
Washington: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make
and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution
which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act
of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of
the power and the right of the people to establish Government
presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established
Government. (From his Farewell Address, emphasis mine)
What Mr. Obama proposes, if carried out at the federal level where his authority lies, is unconstitutional. Yes, the Department of Education is well established and has been with us for a generation. No, it is not authorized by the Constitution. And claims to change the tax code to "help small businesses" are hardly credible when one looks at the tremendous expenses incurred by business under the "Affordable" Health Care Act. (I prefer to call it Obamacare myself, because calling it "Affordable" Health Care is so blatantly untrue.) Biggest "tax hike" in American history. Really, the way that Mr. Obama has run up the nation's credit cards is appalling, and steals any credibility from lip-service to bringing down the deficit.
Romney: This is obviously a very tender topic. I've had the occasion over the
last couple of years of meeting people across the country. I was in
Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, "I've been out
of work since May. Can you help me?" Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her
with a baby in her arms, and said, "Ann, my husband has had four jobs in
three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job. And we've
now just lost our home. Can you help us?"
Yeah. Ascribing god-like powers to the presidency, the power to reach out and change our lives, to fix everything... it bothers me. Americans need to stop this. Stop looking to others to fix our problems and rediscover the independence that our forefathers are famous for. This stuff isn't the president's job. It's our job. It's our job to do for ourselves, and our job to help our neighbor when they are in need.
Romney:And the answer is, yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different
path, not the one we've been on, not the one the president describes as a
top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That's not what I'm going to do. My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North
American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs. Number
two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America, crack down on
China, if and when they cheat. Number three, make sure our people have
the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. We're
a far way from that now. Number four, get us to a balanced budget. Number five, champion small business. It's small business that creates
the jobs in America. And over the last four years, small- business
people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new
business, because new business startups are down to a 30-year low. I
know what it takes to get small business growing again, to hire people.
1. Energy independent. I think this is a good idea. I suppose this would fall into the recommending laws for Congress's consideration department. If I was him, I'd couch it in those sorts of terms. Saying it's something that he's "going to do" is risky, because he's over-promising if he plans to stay inside the confines of his Constitutional authority. The President executes laws; Congress makes them.
2. Trade. This actually is relevant to the presidency, through treaties. But again, he needs Congress to make anything happen.
3. Education. Federal involvement is unconstitutional, regardless of who is advocating it.
4. The budget. That originates in the House, but the President usually submits a proposed budget, which is his prerogative under the recommending laws in Article II Section 3. A balanced budget would be nice, but it's going to be a tough sell. There is somebody who thinks that every program is critical, and my feeling on the situation is that Congress is going to feel like it's a threat to their power to do the sorts of cuts that we really need to get anywhere with the budget. Meaningful change is going to be uncomfortable. Unpleasant. Perhaps even downright nasty, and Americans will have to tighten their belts in ways that they don't want to do. I don't know that he can do this one, because I don't think that Americans have the will to do what is necessary at this point.
5. Champion small businesses. This is incredibly vague. Yes, he's got business experience, yes, it's small business that make up the majority of our nation's workforce, yes they're struggling. Just what, exactly does he propose to do about it? Can't make a call on this one, because he doesn't really say anything of substance here.
And, it being 1am, I think that's all that I can do for one night. So far, both candidates have some serious problems with adhering to the Constitution. Mr. Obama is still in many ways the Congressman that habitually voted "present." The stuff he talked about doing here is either unconstitutional or not credible. As for Mr. Romney, I'd hoped he'd do better. I'd hoped that he'd be closer to the Constitution. I know. Radical idea. Constitutional Originalism. What a crazy idea.
Harry Reid recently made headlines by bashing Mitt Romney, saying that Romney has "sullied" Mormonism with him comments about the 47%. Reid's got a pretty good history of bashing Romney; it's nothing new at all. But this time, he's brought the faith that I share with the two of them into the fray, which kind of boggles my mind. One expects religious barbs from outside, rather than inside, the faith.
But what about the comments? Is there any basis to what Reid says? I don't think so. I'll tell you why. But, before I start, I think that when forming an opinion of something, looking at original sources is critical. Commentary is often useful and thought-provoking (I hope including this post!) but it's best to start with the original stuff whenever possible. To that end:
First, it's useful to look at the video of Romney's comments. You will likely find a transcript of the whole meeting useful; I did. The 47% comments -and their complete context- are approximately a quarter of the way down the page.
Next, for the other side of the story, read the whole blog post by one Gergory Prince, that Reid is agreeing with. I haven't been able to find a complete transcript of Mr. Reid's comments, so a news article summarizing them will have to do. I'll wait. It's a bit of reading and watching to get to this point, but it's best to have both sides of the story when trying to find the truth of any matter, and without the truth of what both sides are saying its impossible to come to a well-informed opinion.
Finally, I'll share my thoughts on the matter with you. Right up front, I'll say that I don't have a problem with Romney's comment.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.
Yeah. That's true. Mr. Obama has quite a few supporters, and many of them are simply not going to be persuaded to vote for anybody else. It's not going to happen.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no
matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are
dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who
believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who
believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to
you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give
it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
Now, I don't know that the whole 47% are actually dependent, but I do know there are a number of people of my acquaintance who, if they are not dependent themselves, feel that others are and that not only is that OK, but it's their Christian duty to support those folks who are less fortunate. And, between the two groups, yep, I think they are going to vote for this president, no matter what. (I believe that government is the wrong place to be doing charitable work, which I have blogged about here and here.)
Now here's the part that's got a lot of people up in arms:
And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince
them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their
lives.
According to Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid, this is absolutely terrible. But if you look at the context Mr. Romney is speaking in, he's talking about potential voters to be persuaded to his cause. If you look at that transcript, he's been talking about persuadable voters for quite some time prior to the "offensive" comment. The audience asks him what they can do to help his campaign, and that's what he's talking about. They address the persuadablilty of women voters, and how to reach out to Hispanic voters. He asks them for money, so that he can fight back against the anticipated character assassination attempts by Mr. Obama's team. (It is, after all, a fundraiser.) They talk about college students, and how they might reach them, and persuade them to vote for Mr. Romney. And that is the context of the comments: which voters are persuadable. Mr. Romney's assessment of the dependent voters is that they're never in a million years going to vote for him, and recognizing that, he's not going to put effort and funds into trying to reach them.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with charitable work in the first place! What they have done here is called a "Straw Man Fallacy." That is, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid have set up something that is similar to but not actually what Mr. Romney was talking about, and then, rather than attacking what he actually said (47% of voters will never vote for me) they attack the "straw man" (Romney hates the poor). It's flawed reasoning, but American schools don't teach reasoning or logic any more, so the public falls for this sort of thing all the time. If Mr. Reid actually believes what he's saying, then we have a Senate Majority Leader who does not understand basic logic. If he is aware that this is flawed logic, and I'd like to give him that credit if for no other reason that I hate to think of a man in such an influential position being so vulnerable to bad arguments, then to make the argument that he's making is disingenuous at best and at worst, dishonest.
But, let's pretend for a minute, for the sake of argument, that it does mean that Mr. Romney is unconcerned about the poor. Then, we can give some critical attention to the comments made in Mr. Prince's post, and to the claims that Mr. Romney is out of step with Mormon theology.
At the outset, Mr. Prince is clear: this is a religious beef, not a political one that he's got with Mr. Romney's comments.
When the news of Mitt Romney's Florida video broke on Monday evening, I
was incensed -- but not for its political implications. His arrogant
and out-of-hand dismissal of half the population of this country struck
me at a visceral level, for it sullied the religion that he and I share...
My guess is, that if he's responding that quickly, he didn't have the full transcript. And the comments, out of context, are easily to interpret in ways that Mr. Romney clearly didn't mean when you look at the larger context. And this clip isn't the only one that the Mother Jones YouTube folks have either removed from context or given sensationalist titles. But there are still things about his analysis of the situation that bother me, even if you assume that Mr. Romney is dismissing half the country out of hand.
That face of Mormonism is the one that calls on some of its members,
particularly bishops and stake presidents, to devote as many hours
gratis to their church jobs as they do to their professional jobs. It
is the one that summons up extraordinary acts of love, compassion and
generosity, often in response to the deepest tragedies of life -- and
death.
But it is not the one that dismisses out-of-hand half the population
of the United States by saying, "My job is not to worry about those
people. I'll never convince them they should take personal
responsibility and care for their lives." As a bishop and stake
president, Romney worried about those very people. Indeed, he worried
far more about them, and spent far more time and means in assisting
them, than the others in his flock who were more fortunate.
This section bothers me because Mr. Prince doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the duties of a Bishop - a position that Mr. Romney is not currently serving in - and the duties of the President of the United States. The duties of those two positions are widely disparate, and it seems to me they have really very little overlap. Bishops duties are laid out in scripture, and include: to be "common judges in Israel" - which I understand to mean they assist repentant sinners in their repentance process and they deal with church discipline in the cases of unrepentant sinners. He is to use the Holy Spirit to discern spiritual gifts and prevent counterfeits leading his flock in the wrong direction. He is to "administer in all temporal things" which does, indeed, mean that he spends a great deal of time and effort in administering to needs of the poor. On the other hand, the President of the United States holds a secular position, and his duties are laid out in Article II Section 2, and include: being the Commander in Chief of the nation's military. He, with the advice of the Senate, makes treaties, appoints people to various national positions including in the judiciary and our ambassadors, he fills vacancies in the Senate, he periodically informs Congress as to the State of the Union, he may propose laws for Congress to consider, he receives ambassadors, oversees the execution of federal law, and commissions officers in our military.
I'm really not seeing any overlap in the duties of the two offices, and it makes perfect sense to me that there should be a sharp contrast between Bishop Romney and Candidate Romney. In fact, I submit that undue attention to the charitable efforts that Christian faith requires from its adherents would actually violate the Mormon faith's tenants. Let me explain:
First, we have scripture dealing with the Constitution:
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
For those readers not familiar with the LDS concept of "agency," it is basically freedom. We believe that the ability to choose, to determine our own fate, to live, to prosper, to fail, and so on, on the strength of our own choices is God's greatest gift to man, next to life itself. Thus, in the Mormon belief, to attack agency is a crime of similar magnitude to attacking a life.
We also have strong beliefs about the Constitution, and about the importance of the freedoms that it codifies, and the importance of upholding them. There is also quite a bit of commentary by the leaders of the Church on this topic. Here are a few representative quotes:
To every Latter-day Saint, we have a tremendous obligation to be good citizens, to uphold the Constitution of this land, to adhere to its basic concepts, to do all in our power to protect the freedoms and the liberties and the basic rights which are associated with citizenship. The Lord has said even in our day, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have an obligation. He has not only spoken about the Constitution being inspired, He has said that if we are to be good Latter-day Saints, we also have to take an interest in this country in which we live and we are to see to it that good men are upheld and sustained in public office. -Ezra Taft Benson, quoted in A Glorious Standard, page 96 We urge members of the Church and all Americans to begin now to reflect more intently on the meaning and importance of the Constitution, and of adherence to its principles. -Harold B. Lee, IBID p. 93 Teachings and ideologies subversive to the fundamental principles of this great Republic, which are contrary to the Constitution of the United States... will be condemned, whether advocated by Republicans or Democrats. -David O. McKay, IBID p. 82 Our wonderful Republic. May we revere our heaven-inspired Constitution and keep it foursquare with the plan of its inspired architects... -Charles A. Callis, IBID p.90
So, what do those "inspired architects" say about charity in the federal government? They say it is unconstitutional.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the
money of their constituents."
AND
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-James Madison
Thomas Jefferson commented on the practice of "redistributing" as well:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or
whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to
violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to
everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by
it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
While he was not a founder, President Franklin Pierce agreed that charity is outside the role of the federal government as described by the Constitution:
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To
approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union
of these States is founded." -- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
Though there are all sorts of "charitable" programs run by the government in our day, the Constitution has never been altered to allow it. The enumerated powers of Congress (Article I Section 8) do not include the power to take what one man has earned and give it to another who has not earned it. Just because it is done, and has been allowed, does not make it lawful or just. And, given the position of the Church on adhering to the Constitution, is not Mr. Romney required to acknowledge as well that these things belong, until We The People alter our Constitution, to the private sector? It is absolutely critical also to realize that saying, "Charity is the exclusive domain of the private sector," is not at all the same thing as, "Charity is unimportant." Far from it! Charitable acts are, as many have noted, critical to the Christian way of life. The Lord called upon individuals to care for those less fortunate many times during His ministry as recorded in the New Testament, but I cannot think of a single time where He called upon the government of Rome to perform that labor. It is the same in our day. When Mr. Romney was serving as a Bishop, coordinating his congregation's charitable acts in order to match service to needs was a very important part of his duties. But the office of the President of the United States is a whole different ball of wax, and to make charitable efforts part of his public work would be a violation of our Church's teachings. Which is not at all to say that he could not do for the poor on his own time, or that Mrs. Romney, acting as First Lady, would be out of line to continue in the tradition of service that is well established in our nation. Far from it!
Mr. Prince is correct when he says:
The very basis of Mormon community, stretching back to the earliest
years of Mormonism nearly two centuries ago, is that the more able have a
sacred obligation to assist the less able. That sense of physical
community was institutionalized in the Church's Welfare Program, which
sprang out of the Great Depression ... not only to give to those
in need, but also to help them to help themselves. Any who have visited
Welfare Square in Salt Lake City, as did the producers of a recent
"Rock Center" documentary on MSNBC, cannot help but be impressed with
what we have attempted, for over seven decades, to accomplish through
what is now an international network of church facilities and
volunteers.
Unfortunately, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid both seem to have missed the differences between the services rendered by a Bishop and by the President of our nation. To everything there is a season, and not all of the Lord's servants serve in the same way at the same time; that would cause chaos! In my opinion, even if Mr. Romney had been dismissing out of hand the situation of those in need (and he was not), then for the position he is seeking, that would be an appropriate action. Not because their needs are not legitimate, but because federal assistance is not legitimate under our Constitution. And that is perfectly consistent with Mormon theology, so long as his personal efforts to assist the poor remain in place.
