Tag: Modern government

Just A Passing Thought

From time to time I have flights of fantasy….and this is just one that I came up with over a cup of good coffee.

We had had months of Donny new approach to the government and it is working well for him….but could the Dems learn from his governing style?  (now that is an excellent question)

This article is an interesting look into a possible future of the government…..

This article, for clarity’s sake, rests on a few assumptions. It is January 20, 2029, and a generic Democratic president has just taken the oath of office. They are joined by the exact majorities that Trump had in 2024: 220 seats in the House and 53 seats in the Senate. The Supreme Court remains unchanged with six conservative justices and three liberal justices—a likely prospect, given who would select the replacements of the court’s eldest members.

This allows us to assume that the next Democratic president will face a similar playing field. This includes a highly deferential legislative branch—one that will confirm all (or almost all) of their nominees, prevent government shutdowns through regular funding measures, and decline to use certain congressional powers to reverse executive actions—and a federal judiciary that is highly deferential to executive power. (Or at least this particular executive’s power.)

The most important thing the next Democratic president can do is simply turn the lights back on. Reversing Trump’s executive orders and regulatory changes would be the new administration’s number-one priority. Staffing agencies with political appointees who actually believe in their agencies’ missions will also help. Such changes happen to a certain extent with every partisan change in a presidential administration, but it will be particularly dramatic in the post-Trump era.

At the same time, much of the damage will not be easily reversible. Top Trump officials like Russell Vought, the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, and Elon Musk, the former head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, prioritized large-scale reductions in the federal civil service almost immediately after Trump took office. The apparent goal was to reduce state capacity—the government’s basic ability to do things—by eliminating institutional knowledge and manpower in key regulatory agencies. It would take many years for the next administration to rebuild that workforce, which was precisely the Trump administration’s goal.

https://newrepublic.com/article/200599/next-democratic-president-governs-trump

An interesting thought indeed…..

Just what would the GOP be saying if a Dem president was issuing all these EOs and targeting opponents with vitriol….they would be having a stroke on camera at all the silliness and un-American activities.  (I ask that question knowing the type of total manure that I will get as an answer)

My take is that since most Dems are worthless centrists they just do not have the nuts to be this bold….so if and when they return to the seat of power they will be the same party of old white guys that do little and promise the world.  (I do hope I am mistaken but past incidents tells me I am not)

Your thoughts.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why The Dumbest People?

Now that is a loaded question that can go off in many different directions but for this post I want look at the trend in government.

I have not impressed in the last three elections with the choices that have been made for those that sit in judgement on the rest of us peasants.

For the most part these people have been the dumbest on record…..and watching these fools stumble through the governing process I ask ….are they incompetent or just plain dumb?

Here is a view on that very question….

As the old song by The Who goes, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” It’s a sentiment many of us feel every time a new mayor, governor, or president takes office, and we can’t help but feel that we deserve someone better. In a country with so many brilliant scientists, business people, educators, and public policy experts, why do the least impressive of us seem to rise to power?

Philosophy expert Julian de Medeiros, a popular TikToker and Substack blogger, recently wrestled with this question, and it must have been on a lot of people’s minds because the video received over 4.2 million views. “Why does it seem like so many people in power are so dumb? It’s like, why can’t we get a better class of leaders?” he asked.

Ultimately, de Medeiros believes that power and intellect are often at odds. “I’ve thought about it a bit more, and I think this is my thesis: that power is inherently anti-intellectual. Because what does intellect do? Intellect questions power. It speaks truth to power. It critiques power. And power doesn’t like that,” he says. “And so power has to speak to the lowest common denominator. It dumbs everything down.”

“It’s an anti-intellectual force. And that’s why it seems like those in power are also the dumbest,” he concludes his video. The commenters further expanded on de Medeiros’ thesis. “Also, intellectual people question and analyse everything. A leader needs to be invested in their opinion and abide by it,” one wrote. “Because those in power or seek power cares about the power only, so they make the decisions that keep them in power no matter what is the output,” another offered.

Another reason people who are a few fries short of a Happy Meal are often voted into office is that there is a deep vein of voters who are skeptical of intellectuals. These people tend to be populists who value “common sense” over intellectualism and may see experts or highly educated people as dangerous and out of touch with the common man. So, candidates position themselves against the “intellectuals” by either being their proud, dumb selves or by taking their IQ down a few notches while in public.

Theologian and philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906—1945) believed that dumb people often ascend to power because evil people have difficulty getting elected. So, they champion someone who may be more charismatic or connected and ride their coattails into power.

Finally, much like de Medeiros, Bonhoeffer believes there is a big difference between intellectualism and power. Therefore, once one attains power they are highly lifely to look like a buffoon. It’s as if, “Slogans, catchwords and the like… have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being,” Bonhoeffer says.

It’s sad to realize that the very nature of power means that those who hold office, whether we voted for them or not, will probably disappoint us at some point. But the good news from this understanding is that we are freeing ourselves from the constant disappointment of having leaders appear rather dumb. Now, whenever we meet the new boss, we can assume he’s just like the old boss and be positively delighted if they wind up slightly smarter.

(upworthy.com)

That explains a lot.

Just once it would be nice to see someone with half a brain leading this country for awhile.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You KNow

“lego ergo scribo”

Is It Corruption?

I am asking about our government…..is it a representative body of the people or just a pack of greedy slugs scratching for more cash to do business?

I mean Russia has its oligarch…..and so does the US….although we pretend that it is different…..it is not greedy slugs selling their vote for cash…..it is corruption….but do not take my word for it…..

Another sign of growing discontent in America? A new poll from the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics finds a majority of Americans think the government is corrupt and stacked against them.

To probably no one’s surprise, 73 percent of poll respondents who identify as “strong Republican” respondents agreed with the statement that the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me.” But Republicans are far from alone in this sentiment. Fifty-one percent of “very liberal” voters agreed with the same statement.

Overall, 56 percent of survey respondents said that the government is corrupt. This included 66 percent of all Republican respondents, 63 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Democrats.

The survey of 1,000 registered voters found that a significant number of people expect that extreme measures may be necessary to protect against government overreach. 28 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government.” Thirty-six percent of Republicans, 35 percent of independents, and 20 percent of Democrats agreed. 

While some have portrayed this as a sign of increasing polarization or extremism, I think it’s the kind of poll question that makes for dramatic results but doesn’t really tell us much. Agreeing that armed revolution “may” (or may not!) be necessary at some unspecified point in the future doesn’t mean you think it’s terribly likely to be necessary.

One interesting finding is that people across the board believed that their political opponents might agree with them if they were better informed. Asked about “people who you disagree with on political issues,” half said that “the root of the problem” is that these people “are misinformed because of where they get their information.” Fifty-one percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats, and 37 percent of independents believed this.

Most Americans Think Government Is Corrupt, a Third Say Armed Revolution ‘May Be Necessary’ Soon

This was made more possible thanx to yet another SCOTUS decision that let corporations give money hand over fist to representatives in the form of ‘donations’….bribes to do their bidding…..

Time for a change….you decide what to do….then do it!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Civics Will Solve Any Problems

From the VOMITORIUM

I have been reading and writing about the impeachment thing….to me it is just a replay of the 1990s and the Clinton thing…..I find it amazing that in a country that is so proud of our Constitution……I mean it is a prop for every damn political campaign I have every heard……that so few people know what Civics is all about.

When I was in grade school and into high school American government was a required course and without it one could not move on to the next level…..apparently those days are long gone….

The lack of Civics education shows in the people we elect and the people we listen to for the “news”…..we are a nation readily willing to believe whatever some high paid pundit wants us to believe….that is pathetic…nay it is disgusting!

Most Americans can not pass a simple civics quiz….

… lawmakers in Oregon proposed a bill that would require all public-school students in the state to pass the civics portion of the U.S. naturalization test before receiving their high-school diploma. Under Senate Bill 1038, Oregon students would have to correctly answer 60 of the 100 civics questions to pass. A student could take the test as many times as necessary to reach that threshold and could begin taking the test even before high school. Just last month, Alabama, Arkansas, and Kentucky each enacted similar laws, joining at least 15 other states with such civics requirements for high-school graduation, according to the Joe Foss Institute’s Civics Education Initiative.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/most-americans-fail-basic-civics-test/

Just how much do you know about our way of governing?

Take the quiz…….https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/us/us-citizenship-quiz-trnd/index.html

This is the test given by the naturalization service…..take this one and see what you truly do not know about the government…..https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/educators/educational-products/100-civics-questions-and-answers-mp3-audio-english-version

Personally, I would support mandatory civics in grade school through high school……I think this subject is as important as the economics many schools teach our youngsters.

It is sad that so many of our elected officials have NO idea what the Constitution says or what the duties of their office are all about…..and these are the people protecting this country from harm from external as well as internal problems.

It is sad and pathetic that these people know so little.

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Closing Thought–13Jun19

These days we hear a lot of back and forth in the media about the Constitution especially the “Emoluments Clause”…..

Are you aware of what the “Emoluments Clause” has to say?

The Constitutional Provisions The Constitution mentions emoluments in three provisions, each sometimes referred to as the “Emoluments Clause”:The Foreign Emoluments Clause(art. I, § 9, cl. 8):“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”The Domestic Emoluments Clause(a.k.a.the Presidential Emoluments Clause) (art. II, § 1, cl.7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”The Ineligibility Clause(art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments where of shall have been encreased during such time;and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Now what does the term “emolument” mean?

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “emolument” as an “advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s employment or one’s holding of office.” There is significant debate as to precisely what constitutes an “emolument” within the meaning of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, particularly as to whether it includes private, arm’s-length market transactions.The only two courts to decide this issue adopted a broad definition of “emolument” that includes profits from private transactions not arising from an office or employ.

Have you got all that?

Good!

I asked in an earlier post if we were having a Constitutional Crisis….and this goes along with that question in search of an answer.

Now the news that started this post…..as usual it was something the “Mouth on the Potomac” had to say…..

President Trump made what his opponents called a stunning admission during an ABC interview Wednesday: He said he would consider accepting damaging information on his 2020 rivals from foreign governments. “I think I’d take it,” the president told George Stephanopoulos. “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump said. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘We have information on your opponent’—oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” He rejected the suggestion that the information would be “interference” and said he would “maybe” go to the FBI if he thought there was “something wrong.” But “when you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is,” Trump claimed. “It’s called oppo research.”

When Stephanopoulos told him that FBI Director Chris Wray had said the bureau should be contacted in such a case, Trump said: “The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn’t happen like that in real life.” Trump’s remarks were swiftly condemned by potential 2020 rivals including Joe Biden, the BBC reports. Trump “is once again welcoming foreign interference in our elections,” he tweeted. “This isn’t about politics. It is a threat to our national security.” Former federal prosecutor David Weinstein tells Politico that Americans involved in elections have a “fundamental responsibility” to report contacts with foreign agents.

The FBI director is wrong? Seriously?

Now put any political affiliation aside…is this a violation of the Constitution?  Or should we just ignore the Constitution when it confronts our favorite politician?

Do Americans Really Want A Divided Government?

The cycle always returns…..when one party has all the power, it seems that the voter will vote one out so that there is a divide in the branches of government…but is this a good idea?

Political Wire tries to explain the thinking…..

“If Republicans take back control of the House and maybe even the Senate, it will return American politics to its standard state: divided government. In the 21 Congresses after LBJ’s presidency, one party has held full control of the House, Senate, and White House just six times. Also since LBJ, the longest one party has controlled those three bodies is just for four years (1977-1981 and 2003-2007). And get this: Every time a party has had control of the three bodies, it ended in a wave election for the other side (1980, 1994, and 2006). So is what we’re witnessing just American politics returning to its natural state? Indeed, our NBC/WSJ poll in late August found that 62% of respondents said it was better if different parties control the White House and Congress, while only 29% preferred one party in command of both.”

Now that is a helluva question……and the more you look at history of the political process….it does seem that Americans want a divided government….it think it comes back to the old “checks and balances” thing…..but a better question is it a conscious desire or is it something else?

I guess it is an unconscious thing……..

Pew Research: “While 75% identify the Republicans as the party regarded as doing best in the midterms, fewer than half (46%) know that Republicans will have a majority only in the House when the new Congress convenes in January. About one-in-seven (14%) say the GOP won both the House and Senate; 8% say they won just the Senate; 5% do not think they will have a majority in either chamber; and 27% do not know.”

That shows just how important the mid-terms were….after all the hoopla on the Right of how the American people have spoken……but they are not sure of what they actually said……situation normal…..

Can Government Be Co-Oped?

Is there an alternative to the bureaucratic nightmare that is Washington?  I was hoping that I could find an answer like government co-operatives or co-ops……I researched and thought about the possibility and this is what I came up with after many days of headaches and coffee……

After many, many hours of thought and research….my answer to the question….NOT a chance!  I was hoping that I could find an idea that could have help save a dying system…..dying politically…….

There is a close, but NO cigar when it comes to a government co-op–Syndicalism is a type of economic system proposed as a replacement for capitalism and state socialism which uses federations of collectivized trade unions. For adherents, labor unions are the potential means of both overcoming economic aristocracy and running society fairly in the interest of the majority, through union democracy. Industry in a syndicalist system would be run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid. Local syndicates would communicate with other syndicates through the Bourse du Travail (labor exchange) which would manage and transfer commodities.  (thanx to wiki for the definition)

In syndicalism at its core is direct democracy where all levels of government are elected and hence subject to a recall if they are found to be derelict in the duties…..that is from the top down to the lowest entity….it may be distasteful to some, but if you want to have control over your government again…..a bitter pill sort of thing….

I know…but Professor it is a type of socialism…..yes it is….but it is more equatable than some of the systems we have today…..this could lessen the effect that bureaucracy on government…lessen but nothing can eliminate it…it is a beast with little control….

I am sorry but after abusing my brain trying to find an answer to the growing problem of bureaucracy…I have NOT found a suitable way to control or end the reign of terror….the bureaucrats…..

I give myself an “A” for effort but the Cuban eludes me….dammit!  Sorry Quin, I just cannot see a way around all the crap of bureaucracy……

Federalism–The Series–Part 5–Conclusion

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  American History/Political Theory/Government

The reader now has all the tools they would need to make an informed case either pro or con for Federalism.  Ask yourself is there a future for Federalism?  If so, what would that future look like?  Should Federalism change with the winds or is it to be set in stone with only one meaning and one outcome?

Thomas Paine said this about Federalism during the debate on the Articles of Confederation:

“I consider the individual sovereignty of the States retained under the Act of Confederation to be of the second Class of rights (Civil Rights.) It becomes dangerous because it is defective in the power necessary to support it. It answers the pride and purpose of a few Men in each State- but the State collectively is injured by it.”

Virtually all systems of governance is seldom a stagnant entity….it almost always in evolving mode….federalism is no different…..the federalism that the founders saw for the East Coast does not necessarily work properly when there is a whole continent involved.  Federalism has got to change when other changes occur….changes like population expansion, urbanization, economic shifts and local political changes…all these feed the necessity for change in the way governance responds to the needs of the country.

My personal opinion is that Federalism is not the best way to govern…why?….over the centuries and decades, Federalism has come to represent the influence of wealth over the people’s welfare…it no longer represents the republican attitude of governance.  I guess if I were alive during the massive debate I would have been a Federalist….why?….this is a nation, a strong nation, but the petty little games being played on the state levels have given rise to the beast the James Madison warned us about in Federalist #10….factions is its name……a partisanship is its game.  The longer this type of divisiveness continues the more harm it does to the country as a whole.

I would like to thank the website thisnation.com for all its information on Federalism….

Federalism–The Series–Part 4–The Powers

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/American History/Government

You now have a definition of federalism and you have the types and the whys….now do you know what powers the states have under the federalism cloak?

State Government Powers

As the Tenth Amendment clearly states, those powers not delegated to the national government are reserved to the states. However, the Constitution is almost silent on what these powers might be. The only significant state power specifically mentioned by the Constitution is the ability of the states to call for a constitutional convention and to ratify (or reject) proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Many constitutional scholars have assumed that those powers not mentioned at all in the Constitution were intended to be left to the states. The most significant policy area over which state and local governments have exercised almost complete control has been public education. While the national government has provided hundreds of billions of dollars to help pay for the provision of elementary, secondary and higher education, it has, for the most part, left the details of education policy to the states. Additionally, state and local governments are the exclusive providers (or regulators) of public utilities and services such as water, sewage systems, garbage removal and the maintenance of streets. Most of the other powers traditionally exercised by the states are not exclusively state powers, but rather powers that are shared by both national and state governments (see below).

Limits on State Power

The Constitution includes several prohibitions on state behavior. Most notably, states cannot:

  • Make treaties with foreign governments
  • Print or coin their own money
  • Overrule civil judgments (such as divorce settlements) of courts in other states
  • Treat nonresidents differently from residents (except for charging nonresidents more than residents for tuition to attend state colleges and universities)
  • Refuse extradition requests from other states (if someone is charged with a crime in another state, a state must surrender the suspect to the state where the crime was committed)
  • Wage war against other states or nations

Now the powers that the state governments have is known…but there is more….in 1999 Pres. Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #13132 and defined Federalism thusly:

Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:      (a) Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people.
(b) The people of the States created the national government and delegated to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.
(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is inherent in the very structure of the Constitution and is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.
(e) The Framers recognized that the States possess unique authorities, qualities, and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy.
(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems.
(g) Acts of the national government–whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature–that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.
(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of–and should encourage opportunities for–individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.
(i) The national government should be deferential to the States when taking action that affects the policymaking discretion of the States and should act only with the greatest caution where State or local governments have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or statutory authority of the national government.

The Clinton admin wanted to redefine federalism….and they were very successful and his order can be blamed for a lot of the problems that states are feeling in their financial situations.

The executive order is a way around the pesky congressional process…….

Federalism–The Series–Part 3—The Why?

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/Government/American History

Now the question must be asked…..Why Federalism?

The Framers of the Constitution created a federal system with a national government strong enough to unify the states in their pursuit of common goals without completely robbing the states of their independence. If they had not done so, it is unlikely that the ratifying conventions in the several states would have approved the Constitution. Indeed, the inclusion of the federal principle in the Constitution was a critical factor in its ratification. The benefits of federalism, however, have reached far beyond the ratification debates.

Federalism contributes significantly to the protection of individual rights and liberties in this nation. While many of the opponents of the Constitution were fearful the national government would not respect the rights of the people, there have been several instances in which the national government has stepped in to stop the abuse of individual rights at the state level.

A noble sentiment, but unfortunately it has not done a very good job at protecting the people from abuses……..but that would depend on what we define as an abuse….it will be different in its meaning depending on what side of the political spectrum you stand….

But from the beginning it was more about property rights than the rights of the individual…..if it were all about protecting the people then the property would not have been slaves that they were concerned with…..that was a major problem because most of the people that favored federalism were slave owners and wanted the institution to continue.

Perhaps the most important contribution of federalism to this nation has been the experimentation and “policy borrowing” it has fostered. Because states are free to develop, among other things, their own educational, law enforcement and economic development policies, at any given time there are several different approaches being utilized in different states to address the same set of public policy problems. As the programs and policies implemented by states succeed or fail, other states can learn from them and adopt, or choose not to adopt, similar policies.

Given the ability of states to experiment with different approaches to the problems they face, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the states “laboratories of democracy.” In each of fifty “laboratories,” state policy makers can adopt “riskier” policies than a national policy maker would because when a program is implemented in only one state it can fail only in one state.

If only this was true….policy today is NOT made to help the people they are made to assure the continuance of the governing elite….

Another significant benefit of federalism is that it keeps many political leaders, the decisions they make and the implementation of public policy close to the people.  Federalism, with its multiple levels of government, keeps government much closer to the people than would otherwise be possible.

It is a real shame that above statement, while sounding like a good thing has been anything but good for the people of the different states.  What it has done is put the people second behind business interests and once that is done the premise of federalism being a concept that keeps the people close to government is nullified.