Bring in the Creditors!

Photobucket

One of the greatest problems with government worker unions is the lack of a check on power. In private business, unions can never extort too much out of customers, shareholders, and owners because the company must at least break even to continue paying them, but in government, as just happened with the 66% increase in income tax in Illinois, the ability to tax and extort the people allows union power to grow unchecked. That's why Hailing from Georgia is giving the following proposal of Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich two thumbs up:

First, as with municipal bankruptcy, it would have to be completely voluntary. This means that neither the federal government nor state creditors could push an unwilling state into bankruptcy, no matter how catastrophic the state's finances may be, as this would violate the U.S. Constitution's protection for a state's sovereign immunity.

Second, as with municipal bankruptcy, a new bankruptcy law would allow states in default or in danger of default to reorganize their finances free from their union contractual obligations. In such a reorganization, a state could propose to terminate some, all or none of its government employee union contracts and establish new compensation rates, work rules, etc. The new law could also allow states an opportunity to reform their bloated, broken and underfunded pension systems for current and future workers. The lucrative pay and benefits packages that government employee unions have received from obliging politicians over the years are perhaps the most significant hurdles for many states trying to restore fiscal health.

Third, the new law should allow for the restructuring of a state's debt and other contractual obligations. In a voluntary bankruptcy scenario, states, like municipalities, will have every incentive to file a reorganization plan that protects state bondholder claims and their ultimate recovery. States will evaluate their future access to bond markets and their prospective borrowing rates as they formulate the optimal restructuring plan. (LA Times)

Now states, like private industry, will have a genuine check on union power - the ability to eradicate their arrangements if negotiations bring them to the point of bankruptcy! And just like in private bankruptcy, it can be challenged in court if states are abusing the system. Not state courts though...

This is probably not going to work for the Federal Government, which has no singular higher authority to turn to for such dispute resolution, and so we recommend that this motion be accompanied by a BAN on federal unionization.

This conclusion is from the facts. The facts show two things: 1) unions in government work every bit as bad in practice as they do in economic theory, as the recent affairs of California and Greece attest to, and 2) municipal bankruptcy, which has been an option for cities, counties, and towns since the 1930's, has helped many a municipality, from NYC in 1975* to Orange County in 1994, to fix their affairs. In fact, in Orange county, the restructuring was so successful that they were able to repay 100% of the principal without raising taxes a dime, while instituting useful reforms to prevent a rehash of the events (ERisk):

The new Orange County investment policy statement establishes safety of principal, and liquidity, as the primary objectives of the fund, with yield as a secondary objective. More specifically it prohibits borrowing for investment purposes (ie, leverage), reverse repurchase agreements, most kinds of structured notes (such as inverse floaters) and derivatives such as options. The same document bans the treasury oversight committee and other designated employees from receiving gifts, and obliges them to disclose economic interests and conflicts of interest. The county treasurer now has to submit monthly reports to the investors and other key county officers that contain sufficient information to permit an informed outside reader to evaluate the performance of the investment programme.

Now it is true that for munie investors, who will now see their risk in investment substantially increased, this isn't 100% a good deal. However, this too in the end is probably a good thing, as it makes selling government debt much more difficult, requiring higher interest, and will thus discourage state governments from running their bills so high to begin with in the future. Sorry munies, but we have bigger responsibilities then investors who, whether they knew it or not, volunteered to take a chance. It's time to bring in the creditors, and with them, bankruptcy court!

*Note: NYC did not actually declare bankruptcy. Rather, mayor Abraham Beame, used the threat of it to coaxe a overextended teachers union to invest 150 million of its pension funds in municipal bonds. He then acquire a large loan from the federal government. Not long after, Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani began confronting NYC's debt problems, and largely solved them, and the days of over extension by NYC municipal unions were largely over for decades. (NY Times)

We've Gone Too Far

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"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."

Does it sound like a dream? It shouldn't. It's the first 10 amendments of your constitution, the Bill of Rights from the American Constitution, the Federal Constitution, the limits and powers of your supposedly constitutional federal government. When read like this, it's pretty clear what it says, but we never read it like this. We read the amendments by themselves, and thus we don't get it. We don't. We zero on one little piece, and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.

I realized this when I was looking at the Ninth Amendment (the ninth paragraph above) just now. It seemed so vague, so out there, so pecuiliar and unclear, but it talked about an "enumeration," which may not technically be a pronoun, but might as well be. It occurred to me that, while they may have been passed as 10 amendments, it is ONE bill of rights.

And then something else occurred to me. This amendment, this ninth amendment, is a direct response to exactly what the current "health care reform" is trying to do. There are people out there who want you to think that the founding fathers were playing a game of Simon Says, that because they didn't specifically say that you have right not to buy something, that the powers of "regulating commerce" could extend to every walk of your life, that the constitution is naught but a game of trick questions like those on an IQ exam. But the Founding Fathers, here's what they said:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That is what you call a rebuttal, a rebuke.

When we cross the line of deciding that we may decide what people buy, not to support something else that they own as in the case of environmental requirements against power plant owners or even accident insurance for car owners, but simply because they, the government, have "the power to regulate commerce," which to them means all your money, property and labor, not any freedom of yours, not any individuality of yours, just the all important interstate commerce. No life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for you, just the Commerce Clause. What will come next? What will come next? Will they order us to spend money at the mall during deflation? Will they order you to buy stocks and bonds when the market tanks to avoid "panic?" Will they force people to buy calculators to make checkout lines run faster? Will they force consumption at failing shops and restaurants? Will they make us burn our money and delete our bank accounts to counter inflation?

And when will it end? What happens when they decide that a baby cannot be born because a genetic defect would hurt the economy through the cost of caring for them?

We've gone too far. We need a new amendment. We need to strike down the commerce clause. Obviously the courts cannot be trusted to understand the intricacies of our own bill of rights, their sacred duty, so we must give them something plainer, something easier, something that they'll get, something that doesn't require the intelligence they appear to lack. Here's an idea:

"In the realm of commerce, the Federal Government may regulate only transportation and only those actively transporting goods or state agencies and for-profit businesses that deal directly with them and in no manner indirect."

This has gone too far. We are about to cross the line to unlimited government power, in the name of money, money, sad worthless money, not life, not happiness, not freedom or even decency, but money.

Mike Castle and how to win as a Republican in a rural Yankee state

Downtown Dover, Delaware, Photo by Tim Keiser, under license c.c.a.s.a 2.0 generic

His list of priorities, as listed on his website, are as follows: "Fighting for Delaware", "Jobs", "Energy Independence", "Good Governance", "Education", "Supporting Our Troops", and "Healthcare", in that order and stated in that fashion with bullet points, and lengthy, folksy, passionate discourses below. His opponents are not listed in any particular order, but instead can be selected from a drop down menu, and include "Economy", "Education", "Energy", "Environment", "Financial Reform", "Health Care", "National Security," and finally, "Offshore Oil Drilling", which last time I checked is not a major revenue source for the state of Delaware - stated profesionally, technically, scholastically, transactionally, and without any reference to the state he seeks to represent.

Now, to be fair, this is not displayed on a separate page, but directly on a menu on home, and if you click the "issues" button up top instead of viewing the drop down menu (which you will see first), it goes to a page with little boxes surrounding each issue and stereotypical pictures of what people would think of when they consider that issue, but in no picture is Delaware clearly seen, and your eyes go all over the page, and every time that the words "Delaware" or "Delawarean" are used, they are in small print, below the more important "Energy", "Economy" and "Education"s that are many times their size. The picture of Coons, gazing seriously with the eyes of a hawk, could just as easily be used in a newspaper advertisement for a law firm.

For some time now, Harry Reid has been asking local Democrat senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), to forsake whatever their constituencies might want for the sake of passing progressive national legislation. When they ask about their own voters, he offers earmarks, and money, to essentially bribe whatever constituency he feels needs to be pulled along. [Source] He points to the use of Republican filibusters as a common enemy, and whips all of them together to march lock step lock step in favor of the agenda that the party as a whole has advanced. Coons mentions Delaware only as a part of the larger whole, like: "Delawareans, as well as the entire country, have felt the effects of the current economic climate." Ad libs off of that phrase could capture the entirety of both Coons', Reids and Pelosis platform.

Like Andrew Jackson before him with his decision to evict a peaceful and economically successful native people, the Cherokees, from the state of Georgia without Georgias consent, Coon sees not 50 individual states, but a larger agenda that he (hopefully) sees Delaware benefiting from, but never the main focus of. Castle has not once taken his eyes off of Delaware, and you can see his very website swelling with state pride.

A full profile of the election from the NY Times seems to show very little optimism on the part of democrats in Delaware, with the appointed replacement to Biden not seeking a full term, nor Bidens relatively popular Attorney General of a son, and RCP shows Castle ahead of Coons by double digits. Castle has been Delawares sole house member for 17 years, and is a moderate Republican used to routinely working with Democrats. More importantly, I suspect, is that he is a true Delawarean, while Coons is the executive of Delawares largest, northernmost and urbane county, essentially an extension of Philadelphia, with nothing in common with the remainder of the state, and no real care for it. The democrats, like Pelosi and like Coons, have lost themselves in the dream, and this will hurt them among rural northeastern townspeople, who clearly believe in representatives representing.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 2: Parable of the fruits and the nuts

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"And when the Republican Candidate for Governor of California comes, on the second of November, carried on the backs of lobbyists and wearing a tacky turtleneck sweater, she will divide the Californians, and in her bowl will be the fruits, and in her mouth will be the nuts.

"And she shall sayeth to the fruits as they look on in their simply fabulous sunglasses while their gay partner holds their hand and massages their left shoulder, "curse you oh fruits, for I was hungry, and you cancelled my welfare checks, I was naked, and you let me escape prison for streaking, I was in the hospital, and you cut my Medicaid, I was in prison, and you caused the prison library to be sold to Half Price Books."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you overspent at the ballot box, you did it to me."

"Then she shall sayeth to the nuts as they hold their combined King James Bible and AK-47 maintenance manual, "curse you oh nuts, for I was trying to break the strikes, and you stopped me, I was trying to lower taxes, and you increased them, I was trying to build a fence on the border, and you turned the ground in to quicksand."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you made yourselves look ridiculous, you made me look ridiculous."

"And then everyone, including Meg Whitman, shall inherit a hell called modern day California. There shall be 20% unemployment rates and a considerable number of ruined political careers, and even the wild animals shall consider them an abhorrence and a disgrace."

Reforming the Congress

It seems to me that every year, in between the two-party pressure to conformity, the seniority system for committee appointments, and the growth in Federal Spending and loose construction of our favorite "living document," the US Constitution, the beliefs of common Americans and local and state governments only decline. The fact that Senators are no longer elected by State Legislatures, but instead by the hodge podge of the population of an entire state, has not helped. Nor has the fact that, despite massive improvements in communications technology that our founders would not have considered practical, we still refuse to enact a national initiative process.

To ratify our reforms to congress, we need only use state legislatures. With 3/4 (38 states) of state houses on board, we could amend the constitution without a single congressmen supporting us.

First, we need to appeal the amendment that made the people of the state elect their Senators. When state legislatures are kept out of national politics, they have no hand in the federal checks and balances, making them helpless against institutions that would earnestly deprive them of their power. With state legislatures in power, the states will once again have a voice in DC.

Second, a national initiative process. With a certain number of signatures collected in a certain amount of time, a bill written by common citizens could appear on the ballot for election by all Americans. To quicken this process, and give federal power to cities and counties, local governments could sign the petition to put an initiative on the ballot by way of their councils, thus signing up all their citizens. They could not affect how they vote on the actual ballot, but they can make them vote to put it on the ballot, making them powerful sounding boards and gaurdians of local interests.

With these two major reforms, the State, the City, and the common citizen could be once again heard in Washington, DC.