Examples of irresponsible governing can be found everywhere and transcend political party lines. Democrats are being held by a particularly high standard these days because they are in the driver’s seat. Here is a reality check; Democrats have been fairly honest about their intentions to move rapidly to government control or ownership of the means of production (socialism) for years. Those quiet critics on the side, the GOP, have been equally cooperative in that effort. Their only concern is the pace towards massive government control. Republicans should actually be held to a higher standard.

There are certain bills that were passed that I am using as a litmus test for the next election. Every candidate who supported either bailout and candidates who support socialized medicine in any form are two good examples. Those who voted for such, need to be dealt with in a manner Horatio Bunce handled one of my favorite historical characters.
When Davy Crockett (also known as the “king of the wild frontier”) served in the US House of Representatives and ran for reelection. He was handled rather firmly by one of his constituents named Horatio Bunce. Bunce told Crockett that he believed in the Constitution and that Crockett had, essentially violated his oath of office. This bothered Crcokett who strongly believed in the Constitution and limited government. He wanted to know exactly what he was talking about. Bunce told him “My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?” Crockett recognized the vote and the fact that the Constitution does not give him the right to allocate those dollars. He tried to justify it because the amount was so “small.”

Bunce would have none of it, “It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.’ “The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’

Crockett repented for his bad decision and pledged to not do such again. When an appropriation bill came forward that was not constitutional (aid for the widow of an Admiral), he offered his own salary for a week to help her if his colleagues would join him, and if they did, the sum to be given would be higher that the appropriation. That bill to provide aid was destined to be approved until Crockett took them to task. They voted against the bill, but also kept their week’s pay. Crockett got back on the House floor after the vote and noted “You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

In 2010, if your member voted for bills that are unconstitutional, hold them accountable. If they are not willing to repent, you need to look else where for candidates. Kevin Brady (R-TX), on my show indicated that if TARP had been spent differently, there would have been better results. He had no regrets other than that. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) argued that he voted for TARP because “the best minds in the country argued that the economy would collapse without this spending.” Those “best minds” did not swear to defend the Constitution. Candidates who have voted for bills like this need to denounce those decisions or we must decide to denounce them.

For decades I have been sitting across the table from politicians, authors, business leaders, and economists as guests on one of the radio. There have been a few that believe that the government is the solution to virtually every problem. Government needs to solve health care, housing, poverty, and more. The vast majority believe that freedom works. They will be quick to say government does too much and that its role should be strictly limited.

These conversations tend to run a similar course. They will say the “free market is so amazing and powerful, it is able to create jobs and new industries. It is terrible that government seems to do everything in its power to undermine the economy’s potential.” However, you dig a little deeper and then you start finding exceptions. Most of the time those exceptions are based on what they do for a living. Attorneys who represent clients who have suffered property damage will say, “they support free enterprise, except when it comes to the regulations they place on insurance companies.” The farmer will tell you, “I definitely support free enterprise, except when it comes to agriculture subsidies.” Scientists definitely believe the economy is best left alone “except when it comes to research grants.” You get the idea.

As a result, the United States is, largely, socialistic. We can argue to what extent, but there is no doubt what our country has become. The single biggest (and fastest growing) part of our GDP is government and it has evolved over the decades to accommodate exceptions like those above. Now we have millions of Americans who support free enterprise, “except.” That “except” is bankrupting us and destroying our freedoms.

One of the most inspiring things I ever witnessed was the “Damn Right” campaign for President of Pete dupont in 1988. In that year, I actually voted for the former Delaware Governor while managing a Congressional race in West Texas. I have the feeling I was the only one who casted such a vote in that town. He lost big time in the ballot box, but his message is as potent today as it was then. Pete duPont had no problem telling farmers, seniors, scientists and anyone else that they were part of the problem and that everyone would have to sacrifice in order to restore our freedoms. It was “damn right” for people to carry their own weight and not seek government as a solution.

Those who founded this Republic were aware that it was the natural tendency of government to expand over time. That is why they believed in the dispersion of power and they wanted to make changes in policy hard to achieve. The states would not ratify the Constitution with its “necessary and proper clause” that could be used for all form of abuses, without a Tenth Amendment that makes it perfectly clear that “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.” Those who created this republic saw a nation of nations, with each state offering their own unique approaches to solving problems. They believed that each of these states served as a check to the others because people could leave that state to another that provided more freedom. The decline in our liberties and the increase in socialism, are all linked to the undermining of the political institutions in government designed to protect us from an authoritarian federal government. It is also indicative of a nation that is rapidly moving from “rule by law” to ‘rule by mob.” The fast track to socialism the US is taking is not driven nearly as much by philosophy as it is selfish want.

If we are interested in restoring individual freedoms and making a nation into one that has prosperity as a priority, it begins by leaving our personal preferences behind. That is a necessary part of the path to freedom to get us off the road to serfdom.

Charlie Rose is supposed to be the standard of a great interview, never mind subtle liberal bias. He tends to be relatively thorough with his guests, but he doesn’t seem to have the spark he once had. Enter Peter Robinson. He is, for my taste, the best interviewer NOT on television (when will PBS offer Robinson a show?). He has covered everyone from economists Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell to historians like Victor Davis Hanson. His current series of interviews are with perhaps the most politically incorrect leader Europe has produced in decades, Václav Klaus of the Czech Republic. Consider putting Uncommon Knowledge in your RSS feed.

Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.

Pakistan has done yeoman’s work in trying to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The problem is that the monster they battle is one of their own making. Elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service have always sought to tame the Taliban tiger for their own uses as a sort of pet-terrorist in their battles against India, as well as maintaining a strong hand inside of Afghanistan. This policy has ensured enmity in the Indian Sub-Continent, instability in the Central Asian frontier, and the country being a basket case economically. Pakistan’s day of reckoning has been here for some time. May they not only get rid of the scourge ruining their country, but may those members of the ISI who unleashed this beast be made to suffer as well.

Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.

Even if we have an incompetent leadership and a military brass who are fearful of political correctness, we still have our brave veterans. Thank God for them, and honor them on this day.

Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.