Tag Archives: John Boehner

Checks and Balances – Are We Breaking the Scales?

Josh

By Josh Loveless – Candidate for U.S. Congress 2014

The close examination of nearly every document written by the founders of our great nation reveals a persuasive common refrain: That all men are created equal, and that despotism occurs when one person or group seeks to prop themselves up above the others.  It’s not just a phrase from the Declaration of Independence but rather a thematic supposition for the discourse of that age.

It is for this reason that our United States Constitution was written in the manner that it was.  It is in part also the cause of its genius.  The entire document, including the Bill of Rights, is a lesson in balance; a balance designed to protect equality.  Every phrase and every Article is intended to create a system of compromises, or as it’s often referred to, checks and balances.  Each power ceded to one person or group is checked by another.

The power of the federal government is balanced with the states, and all the states with the voice of the people.  The three branches of the federal government balance and check each other; three making it impossible to tip the scales.  This system of checks and balances is well known and largely understood by most Americans.  But what we often forget is the historical context by which they came about.

In the great Constitutional Convention of 1787 the delegates of the various states met together with the original intention of refining the existing governing document of the day, the Articles of Confederation.  However, some delegates came with the unwavering intention of replacing the Articles with a new government.  This was the beginning of many extraordinarily lengthy and furious debates.

It took an entire hot Philadelphia summer, from May to September, for the delegates to write and agree up on the Constitution.  The disagreements were hotter than the summer air, in so much so that the Constitution can really be called a document of compromises.  Nearly every governing rule contained in it is the result of some compromise; from the number of Senators, the splitting of the Congress into two houses, the powers of the President, the number of Supreme Court justices, and the election of the President through an Electoral College.

It is these compromises that in and of themselves create the checks and balances of the system.  Without compromise the Articles would have been unbalanced and the Constitution would have failed miserably.  226 years later the principles of compromise and protection of equality appear to be largely forgotten.  The lessons taught to us by our fore-fathers are essentially being ignored.

There are many examples of this irresponsible amnesia in our recent political discourse.  For example on Monday, January, 14 2013 President Obama complained, “America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they’ve already racked up”.  Less recently in response to a request by Republicans to discuss the 2009 stimulus bill, the President refused to listen to Republicans or debate the merits of the bill, simply stating, “I won”.

Not to be outdone by the uncompromising president, House Speaker John Boehner has also given up on debate.  During a particularly difficult negotiation over the recent Fiscal Cliff bill Boehner offered the President an increase in taxes and then asked, “What am I getting?”   The president replied, “You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.”  After this exchange Boehner was quoted as saying he was “done meeting with President Obama one-on-one”, and that he would no longer participate in debate with the White House.

compromise

It is this exact lack of genuine discussion and compromise that has created many of the problems our nation faces today.  There is nothing wrong at all with having strong principles and standing on those principles.  But there is something terribly wrong in thinking that we, or our leaders, or our political parties, or our principles are the only right ones.  We are wrong to believe in the superiority of our ideas to exclusion of all others, such that we refuse to even listen to those who disagree.

Many of my conservative friends will probably vehemently disagree with that statement.  But if you do, I submit that it is a grave mistake.  They would perhaps argue that our situation has occurred BECAUSE we have compromised on our principles.  I disagree.  I would submit that in those cases, we haven’t compromised, but instead have surrendered these principles back and forth as often as we’ve changed our politicians.  I would submit that we have forgotten what compromise in context of the United States government certainly means.

The Constitution proves this point emphatically in my opinion.  From a Constitutional perspective compromise should not mean a surrender of one idea or principle to another.  Instead compromise can be a policy, a law, or an article that allows two seemingly conflicting principles to peacefully co-exist, to even work together for the common good.  It is that type of compromise that creates balance.  It is that type of balance that is endangered.

Yes, there are some principles upon which we CANNOT compromise, and that we can accept no form of balancing power.  I would submit however that most of those issues are already settled.  Examples would be the need for a strong Federal government that does not allow states to secede.  Or, that every American is free, and equal, despite race, religion, or creed.  While not perfect, the major flaws in the Constitution have been addressed.

we the people

Instead, here are a few examples of principles we are choosing not to compromise on, in favor of angry, divisive, and often dishonest pretension:

Liberals traditionally believe in a strong government that constrains business, protects common citizens, and cares for our environment.  They are traditionally a party focused on compassion.   You may not agree with their conclusions about Global Warming for example, but can you in good conscience look out the window at smoggy skies, and filthy water and say we cannot do better?  We live in a time of great economic instability and wide-spread joblessness.  Is this not a time in which our government should find reasonable ways to have and encourage compassion?

Conservatives generally believe in limited government, constrained spending, and a powerful military.  In this age of runaway spending can our liberal friends not agree that more limits and constraints on government might be needed?  In an age of increasing global instability can we really argue against a strong centralized military?  Can conservatives not agree that a strong military isn’t necessarily an expensive one, and that military constraint can be equally powerful if properly implemented?

This is only scratching the surface of course.  For most issues currently facing the American people, the answer is yes, there is room for compromise.  In fact, I would submit that most Americans are still very much in the center on the big issues.  We are generally reasonable people.  Many of us are actually seeking for this kind of debate, for leaders who are willing to strike bargains that are universally beneficial.  We want to have a good and a reasonable public discourse of ideas.

But our political class, our media, and many or our own personal conversations have abandoned this standard, and in some cases have abandoned all reason.  George Washington in his Farewell Address prophetically warned our nation about party affiliations and the dangers of extremism and polarization.

“The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.”

Portrait_of_George_Washington

It is this thought that should normalize our discourse, the thought that we protect individual liberty best by acting in concert.  Together, we have largely ignored this original American theme.  We have instead placed tremendous burdens (in the form of dishonest, rhetorical, “platitudinized”, angry discourse) on the platforms of the scale of American government.  In its inspired greatness this Constitutional scale is right now holding up under the tension.  But the chains that secure the scale’s platforms are straining and may soon burst.

Make no mistake; a break in this scale would have far reaching negative consequences.  We must soon remember who we are, and what we really stand for or risk the fall of our union.  We need to personally change the way we speak to each other and the way we debate.

And if we as a people place our leaders and our media instead upon the scales and find that they do not balance. If we find that they are unwilling to hold civil discourse on difficult topics.  Or if we find them so unbending as to reject sound compromise, then it is our duty as Americans to replace them.  That is our check and our balance against them.

To learn more about Josh Loveless and his campaign for U.S. House of Representatives visit:

www.facebook.com/joshlovelessforcongress

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

I don’t even know where to start.  It is days like this where I feel I wasn’t born with nearly enough middle fingers to full express my annoyance. I’m sincerely at least four middle fingers shy.

I just read a couple of articles.  The first is from the New York Post.  It bugged, bugged, bugged me, but not a “New York Times” kind of bug. After reading almost any article from the “Times” I feel like I just threw up in reverse.  This “Post” article just really ticked me off.

Apparently the New York Post, though the Freedom of Information Act received a data base of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) records from January 2011 to July 2012 and found dozens of cases were the Welfare recipients accessed their tax payer funded EBT cards for such lifesaving purchases as “liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs.”

We Accept Food Stamps

Oh yeah, you read that correctly.  People are using their EBT cards in Strip Clubs. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute was quoted as saying, “This is morally scandalous.”  He continued, “I have nothing against strip clubs, but that’s not what benefits are for. I don’t blame [recipients]. If you are poor, it’s a crummy life and you want to have a drink or see a naked woman. I blame the people who are in charge of this.”

Ya think?

Now as a rule I do not judge other people (unless, of course, they’re stupid, ugly, smell bad, wear shoes with individual toes, listen to crappy music, or drive a smart car), but I sincerely think that unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, and you knowingly and willfully shift the burden of supporting your worthless ass to someone else and spend the taxpayers’ money on things like, oh I dunno, STRIPPERS and stuff, you’re a piece of crap.  I don’t want to necessarily quote myself, because it comes across as cocky and arrogant, but several months ago I wrote what can only be described as a brilliant article that touched on welfare abuse and government waste.  You can access the brilliant article HERE.

Entitlest

According to the article (the one from the Post), “Welfare recipients receive food stamps and cash assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Both benefits are accessed through an EBT card, but only cash assistance — meant for housing, utilities and household necessities — can be accessed at ATMs.”

In a COMPLETELY unrelated article from the “Wall Street Journal” Speaker of the House John Boehner said that at one point when he was talking to the President about the Fiscal Cliff the President said, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Apparently the President believes the country just doesn’t have enough revenue (read taxes) coming in.  It makes me wonder who paid the bills in the Obama household before he became President.

Several months ago a Facebook friend of mine said this “I think the mistake most conservatives make is in thinking that austerity has ever worked once. It never has, the great depression was lengthened by austerity.”  It confused me at the time, because it went contrary to what I thought the word “austerity” meant.  I did a quick Wikipedia search and it turns out I did know what it means.  “In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Austerity policies are often used by governments to try to reduce their deficit spending and are sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to demonstrate long-term fiscal solvency to creditors.”  My question is in the last several years have we, the United States, ever tried deficit cutting?  I’m going to go out on a limb and say NO.

Here is food for thought: in a time where it is clearly acceptable for a news agency to post things like a map of law abiding gun owners imagine the uproar if a news agency did the same thing to welfare recipients?  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the names, amounts and locations of the funds being spent?

I think raising taxes is a mistake.  But it happened.  Why aren’t the Democrats even trying to come to the table with entitlement reform?  Every year the number of Americans who receive government assistance increases.  President Obama is the “Food Stamp President.” But we are told we are in the middle of an economic recovery.  So why the increase in assistance?  Could it be to mask the pain?  If everyone has assistance and is able to “get by” wouldn’t they be less inclined to notice pesky things like food prices?  I don’t have a problem with a “hand up.”  I don’t have a problem with a safety net, I just don’t think it should be a hammock.

 

LIFEZILLA: If I typed as carelessly as I spoke then ;lksdafjk nh; ‘&8jjfsjkladfjsdf

1934 Cartoon

 

34E75D64-7E4A-402B-B527-9EE89BF711CA

 

Get Confident, Stupid!!

 Get Confident, Stupid!!

  I gotta tell ya, I have recently come to the realization that the best time to start any project, preparation, plan, personal policy or kidnapping, is exactly five years ago. My brain is constantly being inundated with things I wish I would have written about.

It’s really annoying.

Imagine filtering through the mod podge/ collage of songs, silliness, movies, phrases, family, dumbery, full frontal nudity, political philosophy, the Wangdoodles, Hornswogglers, Snozzwangers, or the rotten, Vermicious Knids that are constantly bombarding my brain.  I have to sift myself through a buttload of groan-inducing and mediocre crap to find the one little gold nugget I want to write about.  I could easily compare it to mining for diamonds in a gigantic grotto filled with fossilized bat dung.  Because that is exactly what it’s like.

Again, it’s really annoying.

So I have been thinking about this off and on the last few years.  It is something that really bothers me.  I primarily see it in the media, but it extends into everyday life with normal people too.  I don’t know if I’m special (my mom says I am) or if my brain is just wired weird.  I just don’t have a problem with people having their own points of view.  In fact, I welcome it.

Let me explain.  About three years ago we had the introduction of “the tea party.”  A group of people who were sick of “business as usual” in Washington, who felt like we, as Americans, were Taxed Enough Already and wanted to rein in the out of control spending in Washington.  A very noble goal.  Of course, you had the few fringe weirdos who wore the colonial clothing complete with the three cornered hats.  I have no problem with those guys either.  When watching the news every once in a while you would see a sign that said something like, “I am John Galt”, or “Vote for John Galt.”  I had just recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand so I knew exactly who John Galt was.  I also remember for a short time, the media trying to vilify Ayn Rand.  I was watching a reporter interviewing Congressman Paul Ryan.  The reporter asked Mr. Ryan if he agreed with Ayn Rand about something.  Mr. Ryan said he did.  The reporter then said (something along the lines of) “so you don’t believe in God?” (I’m doing this from memory – I tried for just a minute to find it on Youtube, but got bored.)  The reporter tried to draw the conclusion that because Ayn Rand was an atheist, and because Congressman Ryan agreed with a facet of her philosophy that suddenly Ms. Rand was elevated to godhood where everything that falls from her lips was and is the gospel truth.  If she didn’t believe in something, then clearly he didn’t believe it either.

That, my dear reader, is what bothers me.  It happens time and time again.

One more example, again, from a few years ago.  Shortly after a new group of Tea Party approved congressmen/women were elected, I was watching an interview with Speaker of the House John Boehner.  Between bouts of sobbing he was flippantly asked by the reporter (who looked like he would more likely be a member of the Saturday Night Live cast, than a reporter) something along the lines of why he (Boehner) couldn’t get House Republicans to “march in line.” (Again this is from memory – I’m sure it was worded better than that).  I don’t remember exactly what Boehner said, because four words into his pansy reply I started screaming at the TV.   (I’m really brave at home, in my room, with the door locked, under my bed, holding my blankie, with the lights on).  I know Boehner’s reply was pansy because he is holding out hope the media will one day realize Republicans are great people.  He should have said, “Do you even understand how our Government works?”  Then go on to explain that the beauty, and pure brilliance, of our system of government is that it was designed by men who knew the biggest danger to our freedom was the power of other men.  The founders designed a government of limited, enumerated powers, whose formation was intended to make the accumulation of power by a group (or by individuals) difficult and short lived.  Then, they brilliantly added a list of rights which were inviolable no matter who was in power.  In other words, you cute little reporting bugger you, the Republicans are not robots.  They don’t march.  Obviously there are certain principles you would like them to unite against (or for) but on everything else they need to vote their conscience.  If Boehner wanted to REALLY hit a home run, he could have continued and explained that our Founders insight into human nature explains why Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” crap can never work.  Marx’s theory assumes people are able to be honest about their needs and abilities, when, in fact, most people overestimate both.

But Boehner blew it.

In business, if you have two people on a team who agree with each other 100% of the time, one of them isn’t necessary.  Wouldn’t the same be true in government?

So if I listen to Glenn Beck every once in a while it doesn’t mean I’m buying gold, stockpiling weapons, and burying food in the back yard, preparing for the post apocalyptic world (I would be buying gold if I had a pot to piss in.) I can enjoy his commentary and filter out what I don’t think has value all by myself. Thank you.

When I was in High School I used to watch Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect.   I thought he was funny and insightful.  Now I think he’s an ass.  I disagree with almost everything that spews out of his pie hole.  But I believe he has a right to say what he wants.  And if you, or someone you know, thinks he is funny and insightful I don’t automatically think you’re an ass (although let’s be honest, you probably are.)

Granted, being part of a group makes it so that SOME of your goals, ideas, values, or principles are the same, be they be political, social, religious or intellectual.  The individual is the most important.  Groups can be swayed.  We are all capable and should practice individual thought, and should recognize, and respect this ability in others.