Jefferson & Madison’s Answer to Federal Overreach

December 18, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Rumors are swirling that once again President Obama is going to not only exceed federal constitutional authority, but also his presidential authority by issuing additional gun control regulations via executive order. Since Congress lacks the will to carry out its constitutional obligation to impeach him and remove him from office, what alternatives are left to us? To answer that question I want to take us back to the early years of our republic when the Federalists controlled the presidency (John Adams) as well as both houses of congress.

In June 1798, Congress passed and President Adams signed The Alien and Seditions Act, which was an abusive violation of individual rights and the Constitution as far as some of the citizens of Kentucky and Virginia were concerned. In response Jefferson wrote on behalf of the state government of Kentucky what we today know as “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798”, and he convinced Madison to do the same for the state of Virginia (“The Virginia Resolutions of 1798”). In both of these documents they laid out the case that this legislation was in violation of the Constitution. Jefferson more stridently declared no less than five times that the state of Kentucky held the legislation to be “altogether void and of no force.”

Madison’s draft was not as forceful as that of Jefferson’s and was much shorter, but in both cases these two giants of constitutional republicanism and federalism appealed to their sister-states to join them in resisting this law. Madison summed up the appeal at the end of his resolutions with these words:

“…the General Assembly [of Virginia] doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for cooperating with this State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In his appeal, Jefferson went so far as to declare that “every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.” Yet he also expressed the same approach as Madison that all of the states should band together in opposition to this usurpation by the “General Government” – “…that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

When Obamacare was enacted over thirty states filed suit with the Supreme Court as to its unconstitutionality, and we all know how Chief Justice Roberts’ twisted logic blunted that effort. What should have been done regarding that legislation, and as Jefferson stated about “these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution“, was to band together with the legislatures of each of them issuing the same kind of declaration as Jefferson and Madison did on behalf of Kentucky and Virginia in 1798.

Unfortunately, Jefferson’s and Madison’s pleadings fell on deaf ears, and so the Act remained in effect until Jefferson was elected president and the Democrat-Republicans gained control of Congress in 1801 when they repealed the law. However, consider this scenario: over 30 states (or more) join hands and stand up as a united group against these onerous overreaches of the general government, be it Obamacare, the EPA, you name it; what would be the likelihood that Washington could roll over that many states like they might be able to do to one or a few?

If you read The Federalist Papers, the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions as well as the writings of the Anti-Federalists, you will hear one common argument among them all – namely, “in our political system…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28). It’s time for the states today to stand upon the shoulders of Jefferson and Madison and follow their lead.

-December 18, 2015

The Refugee Crisis: Showdown between Federal and State Sovereignty

December 4, 2015 Frank Kuchar

A number of states are forbidding the federal government from settling within their jurisdictions some of the thousands of Syrian refugees President Obama wants to admit into the US. The President has declared that he will force the states to accept however many of these refugees as he sees fit, and so the stage is set for a major constitutional showdown, like two gunslingers in an old western movie squaring off against one another.

The outcome of this confrontation is far more critical to the future of what’s left of our republic than the welfare of these refugees. It goes to the very heart of the structure of our federally constituted republic and whether or not we shall finally fall into the pit feared by the Anti-Federalists at the time of the ratification of the Constitution by becoming a singular nationalized country instead of a union of independent, sovereign states.

To begin with, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority over the matter of granting refugees admittance. You can read it forwards and backwards, but that enumerated power is not stipulated. This being the case, then this authority must be a power retained by the citizens of the several states, who in their capacity as a body politic, according to the tenth amendment, have every right to make the determination as to the settlement of refugees within their borders.

How is it then that we have reached this juncture of a constitutional crisis over who has authority over immigration policy? Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution stipulates that “Congress shall have the power…to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,…” At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was a distinct difference in meaning between the terms “naturalization” and “immigration”, and they were not synonymous. For the first one hundred years of our history the federal government was only concerned with legislation which laid down the requirements aliens would have to satisfy to become citizens of the United States, while the states enacted their own laws regarding who would be permitted to enter their borders. It was not until the late 1800s that Congress began to enact immigration legislation. Over the past 130 or so years the courts have gradually upheld the federal government’s assumption of this power, but with varying degrees of suspect constructions (which makes this assumption on the part of the federal government even more dubious). The conventional argument is that the naturalization clause of the Constitution includes the authority over immigration as well, but such was not the meaning understood by the original authors of the Constitution. Note the absurd contortion Justice Kennedy resorted to in upholding this argument in the 2012 case of Arizona v. United States:

“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….”

In order to substantiate that naturalization includes authority over immigration, he has to fall back on the authority of the federal government to deal with foreign nations. Really? Such so-called reasoning flies in the face of etymology and our early history (which would be the best indicator of which “sphere of influence” this matter resided).

In light of this and President Obama’s threat, we need to step back and consider the structure of the relationship between the federal government and the states as it was originally intended. In his throwing down of the gauntlet over this issue, the President is claiming that the federal government can set aside the wishes of the citizens of a state in regards to matters that are constitutionally retained by them.

The question becomes, ”Does this assertation comport to the form of the union created by the Constitution?” Our system vests sovereignty in but one place – the people of the several, yet united, states. The sovereign people of the states agreed to grant authority (or limited sovereignty if you will) to two spheres – the federal and state governments – via constitutions. It is in the US Constitution we see the spheres of authority between these two entities clearly delineated, and that neither “sphere” is permitted to invade that of the other.

In Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated, published in 1820, John Taylor of Caroline, after quoting both Madison’s and Hamilton’s comments to this point in The Federalist Papers, succinctly summed up this principle with these words:

“The co-ordinacy of institution, the independence of each other, and the mutuality of the right of construing the federal constitution, are thus recognised and asserted, as existing in the federal and state governments; and the principle, which pervades the whole, must also pervade the parts. If the entire federal government possesses no supremacy over, and can require no subordination from the entire state governments, whilst acting within their respective spheres, no part or department of that government can exert a supremacy over, or exact a subordination from, the corresponding parts or departments of the state governments.”

To apply this to our current showdown between the states and President Obama, if the matter of admitting refugees is a matter left to the discretion of the states, and “If the entire federal government possesses no supremacy over, and can require no subordination from the entire state governments,” then for Obama to claim he can force the states to do otherwise is to turn Taylor’s principle on its head, namely, that if one part of the federal government can eviscerate the authority of the states in one matter, then the entire federal government can do likewise in all areas, and the significance of even the semblance of states’ existence is reduced to the theatre of the absurd.

It may well be that having the federal government control those permitted to immigrate into the United States, especially in this day and time, is the best course of action; but as Chief Justice John Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.”

-December 4, 2015

The Nail in the EPA’s Coffin

November 27, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Today, the EPA is invading the states and infringing upon the liberties of individual citizens by destroying their private property rights. Our founders would be aghast at such actions by an arm of what is supposed to be our “federal” government.

The Constitution and the federal government were established not by “We the People” of one unified body, but rather by “We the People” of the several states, and as such the “federal” government is to be subject to the sovereignty of the people of those several states (space does not permit an exegesis of the 9th and 10th amendments to show that the usage of the terms “states” and “people” refer to one and the same group, just in different capacities).

The people of the several states agreed between themselves to grant certain and limited powers to the federal government, as was affirmed by James Madison in Federalist #45:

“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.”

Clearly, the people of the several states acting in their sovereign capacity never conferred upon the “federal” government the authority to regulate their private property, especially as exemplified in the tyranny of the EPA. However, the nail in the EPA’s coffin can be found in statements contained within the state constitutions of these original thirteen states. They clearly demonstrate the intent of their citizens as to the exclusivity of their rights when it comes to matters within their respective states. Herewith are just a few examples:

New Hampshire: “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.”

Massachusetts: “The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”

Maryland: “That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”

North Carolina: “The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof,”

One has to ask the “federal” government and its agencies such as the EPA, what parts of ” The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state,” or ” The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof” do they not understand?

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. It is clear from the examples of the state constitutions quoted above as well as Madison’s assertion in the Federalist Papers that the actions of the EPA violate this guarantee and these state constitutions. It destroys the representative form of the states’ governments and seeks to nullify these affirmations contained within their respective constitutions. It is therefore past time that governors and state legislators stand up and reassert their state and federally guaranteed constitutional powers and put the nail in the EPA’s (and its sibling agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Agriculture) coffin once and for all.

-November 27, 2015

Christianity and the Government

November 21, 2015 Frank Kuchar

This past week I have read many comments by Christians saying that our nation must admit the refugees from Syria into our midst as that is our “Christian” obligation. Secularists make the same argument but on purely humanitarian grounds. I will not concern myself with the latter in this essay, but rather address my fellow Christians who hold the former position. I will also address the companion view that we should not be asking our leaders to, in the words of Donald Trump, “Bomb the ‘stuff’ out of ISIS.”

First, I will concede that Scripture teaches us to help the needy, the oppressed and the poor among us. Yet every one of those passages are addressing us as individuals. We are to help those less fortunate “as we have the ability.” We have the example of the Gentile churches in the book of Acts (and as recorded in 1 Corinthians) sending their collective funds to the needy Christians in the Jerusalem church. Having said this, however, it cannot be extended to government, for that is not the purpose and function of government.

Individuals form societies from which governments arise because they need a mutually agreed upon entity to ensure that everyone’s rights are equally protected. For this reason they give over to the government some of their natural rights so that justice and orderliness might prevail. In short, the purpose of our government is to protect our inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, and as is stated in the Preamble to our Constitution, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” For the government to allow into our society those whom we are unable to vet regarding their threat to our inalienable rights is a monumental failure of its prime directive. It is also a failure for it to bring into our republic those who will not assimilate into it and adapt our values, for in so doing the very fabric of our society (and by extension our liberties) will be unraveled.

As for waging unrestricted warfare against these who are sworn to the barbarism we have witnessed over the past two decades, remember that God has throughout history used governments to punish peoples and nations. Paul wrote in the book of Romans that governmental authorities “do not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Also, the Lord through the prophet Isaiah called the godless nation of Assyria the “rod of my anger…against a people who anger Me.” How are we to know whether or not we, the United States, are today the “rod of God’s anger” to destroy the evil being perpetrated against Christians and other innocents by these monsters?

Bottom line, if you wish to contribute to some charitable organization to assist those refugees, such is the “Christian” thing to do; but such is not the purpose of government. Its purpose is to protect us from evildoers and to punish those who seek our destruction. As Vladimir Putin, certainly no Christian, aptly put it in regards to the terrorists: “It’s up to God to forgive them; sending them to Him is up to me.” For once, I agree with Putin; if only we had a president who understood this duty as well.

-November 20, 2015

Freedom, Liberty – What’s the Difference?

November 13, 2015 Frank Kuchar

You say “tAmato”, I say “tOOmato”, what’s the difference? Well a similar question could be raised in our usage of the terms “freedom” and “liberty”. Today we use these two terms virtually interchangeably, and perhaps that is correct as they are synonyms for the same concept.

Perhaps I’m splitting hairs on this, but permit me to suggest that perhaps there is a subtle difference between them. Yes, they both embody the same concept, but how these two terms point up that concept I think are quite the opposite of each other.

Freedom, to me, comes at this concept from a negative position. By this I mean that it is stating that we are “free from” something, i.e. we are no longer under the control or constraints of someone or something. We speak of someone who has beaten cancer or some other terrible disease for a period of time as being “free from” or “free of” that ailment. The term implies that previously you lacked this concept, but now you have it.

On the other hand, liberty approaches the same idea but from a more positive position and one that is dependent upon freedom. Sometimes we use the word in the phrase “to be at liberty”, meaning you are able to do something or go somewhere. Sailors who arrive in port are given “liberty”, indicating they have the right to come and go as they please and do what they please (within reason of course!).

But, you might say, what about that Southwest Airlines’ commercial where they say “You are now free to move about the country”? Isn’t that really a use I’m ascribing to the term “liberty”? Not really. In effect, the message of the commercial is “You are no longer constrained to one geographical location” (i.e. you have been freed) “and you are ‘at liberty'” (i.e., have the ability) “to move wherever you wish.”

Splitting hairs you say? Yes, maybe I am. But here’s my point about our present condition under this government – we are losing our freedom daily, meaning we are once again coming under the bondage of tyranny, and thereby losing our liberty to live life as we please. Liberty, Jefferson said, is an unalienable right, but as we lose our freedom to the tyranny of an unconstitutional government, that right will be withheld from us.

– November 13, 2015

Right Cross to EPA’s Chin

November 6, 2015 Frank Kuchar

You may have heard that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a stay on the implementation of the EPA’s new regulations that, if permitted, would give this fascist agency control over virtually every spot of water in the United States – private ponds, wells, low spots on property that turn into wet areas after a heavy rain, etc. There are some encouraging outcomes from this battle, but some disappointing ones as well.

First, the good thing is common sense finally prevailed and the overreach of this bureaucracy was held at bay (for the moment). The appeals court upheld a previous injunction issued by North Dakota Federal District Judge Ralph Erickson. In his ruling Judge Erickson stated that if the EPA was allowed to have its way, “the states will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters” and that “Immediately upon the rule taking effect, the rule will irreparably diminish the states’ power over their waters.” This power grab by the Obama Administration, he declared, was “exceptionally expansive.”

Second, there are currently ten lawsuits being waged by twenty-nine different states against the EPA over these new rules. We are beginning to see the states finally rise up and fulfill the role the founders envisioned, namely that the states would be the front line defense against federal government intrusion upon the freedom, liberties and property of their citizens. Alexander Hamilton said as much in Federalist 28:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.”

Third, the judiciary finally acted in its role as a check on the powers of the executive branch.

However, there are some failures indicated in this ruling as well.

First, even though the appeals panel did rule correctly, it was a two-one split decision. It should have been a three-zero ruling. So instead, we have one judge who clearly does not understand or care that the EPA is a rogue agency whose regulations and very existence are outside the boundary of the limited, enumerated powers of the government as spelled out in the Constitution.

Second, this was not a reversal of the regulations, but merely a temporary “stay” on their taking effect when they should have been completely stricken down.

Finally, the suits brought by the states are dealing with the symptoms of the problem rather than attacking it at its root, namely the existence and authority of the EPA. That is the crux of the problem and where Congress needs to step in and defund then repeal that part of the Clean Air Act that gave the stamp of approval on Richard NIxon’s executive order that created this Gestapo agency.

-November 6, 2015

Setting Our Fiscal House in Order

October 23, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Our debt is soaring, our unfunded liabilities are beyond comprehension, deficit spending continues unabated, and Congress refuses to make the tough decisions to solve any of these problems. Instead, they persist in perpetuating them via one “continuing resolution” after another instead of a responsible, balanced budget. However, as I pointed out seven weeks ago, just balancing the budget is not going to solve our problem – it will help and is a good first step, but there is no single, one-step solution, as I’ve spelled out over the past six weeks. So here is a recap of the several pieces I’ve put forth that must be employed simultaneously to bring us back from the brink of fiscal and economic collapse.

Freeze our spending at current levels. Prioritize items and increase spending in areas desperately needed and constitutionally required while cutting back on those not constitutionally permitted. This would include immediate elimination of all government subsidies to businesses and organizations not constitutionally eligible for government funds.

Eliminate all duplicative programs/agencies. Begin a five-year step down elimination of the funding to all unconstitutional agencies/bureaus at which time they will be eliminated completely. Return control of non-nationally related duties to the states as was intended by our founders.

Repeal the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and force Congress to assume all legislative responsibilities and the courts as the sole avenue for adjudication of disputes.

Return to the welfare reforms put in place in the 1990s’ (and expand those reforms). By removing government’s heavy hand from our economy as stipulated in points two and three, we will experience economic growth that will provide employment opportunities to those currently on welfare – give people a hand up via a free economy, not a hand out from government dependency.

Place a freeze on legal immigration and clamp down hard on illegal immigration, including the deportation of all those who are here illegally. Those here via both means constitute competition in the job market for Americans and place a huge drain on our overly generous welfare system (see point number four).

Repeal the 16th amendment that authorized the income tax, thereby eliminating all income-related and payroll-related taxes and convert to a consumption-based system of revenue as outlined in H.R. 25, “The Fair Tax Act.”

As I’ve tried to outline, albeit briefly, each of these areas must be done in concert with each other. Some may be accelerated and fast-tracked so that they are accomplished sooner than others, but they all should and must be completed within a five-year time period for one simple reason – we’re out of time and the edge of the fiscal cliff is upon us.

-October 23, 2015

What to Do – Part VI

October 16, 2015October 16, 2015 Frank Kuchar

During this election cycle we are hearing candidates spout different plans for reforming our tax code/system. Since revenue is the other side of the coin (spending being the other) that most directly impacts our deficit and increasing debt, it is an major piece of the puzzle that requires addressing. The issue raised by leftists is we need more “revenue” (i.e., taxes), but history has shown that rarely, if ever, does an increase in “revenue” result in a decrease in deficit spending, but rather spurs on even more spending on more unconstitutional programs and agencies.

Could the country use more revenue? Yes, if that additional amount is used solely to pay down our debt. To this end I would submit that once our tax system is replaced, not “reformed”, that excess revenues be required by law be applied to debt reduction. So what tax system would be best?

This cannot be fully answered in a short essay, as I’ve written in years past many pages on analyzing the various options being bandied about. I would submit that the best choice is to replace all income-related taxes with a consumption tax. There has been a bill in the House of Representatives (and a companion one in the Senate) since the early 1990s’ that leadership will not allow to come to the floor for a debate and vote that would do away with these taxes, the IRS, and call for a repeal of the 16th amendment. This bill is most commonly known as “The Fair Tax Act”.

I cannot get into the details of how this system would work, but I will list the main points:

Studies have shown that it would be cost neutral in terms of product and service prices once the transition to it has been fully accomplished as everything we purchase has built into them a 23% cost directly tied to income-related taxes. When those taxes are eliminated, market forces will cause the prices for everything to fall by at least that amount.
It gives everyone an immediate 7.65% pay increase as Social Security and Medicare taxes are no longer deducted from workers’ pay checks (a special benefit to lower wage earners).
It will actually increase revenue in that those who currently pay no taxes on income due to the so-called “underground economy” and illegal activities would now pay taxes when they make purchases.
The wealthy will pay more in taxes as they buy more high-priced items, and we all know that the higher the cost, the greater the sales tax.
We each will control the amount of tax we pay by managing our purchases instead of the government extracting what it determines we should pay and when it must be paid from our earnings.

In 1997 a Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation issued a report compiled by a number of leading economists who had conducted a modeling analysis of our current income tax system with some modifications that were being proposed at the time along with models of changing the system completely to a consumption tax. On page 19 of their report it states

“From the medium to long-run perspective, the consumption tax produced a stronger positive growth effect than the unified income tax….” Then on page 34 it goes on to state that “…tax restructuring in the form of a consumption tax will ultimately produce higher economic growth….”

The benefits that aided in producing these results were spelled out to be the following:

“…reducing the cost of capital through less taxation of capital provides an incentive for additional investment; reducing the marginal tax rate on labor provides an incentive for increased labor effort; increasing the returns to labor through capital deepening can provide an incentive for more labor; and,…reducing distortions in investment decisions by eliminating differential taxation of different types of capital promotes a more efficient allocation of resources.”

In short, moving to the Fair Tax, according to this report, would be the stabilizing boost our economy so desperately needs:

“The broad consensus of all the modeling approaches, that moving from the present-law income tax base to a uniform consumption tax base will result in a long-run increase in GDP, capital investment, and labor effort,”

In closing, I will answer the matter I mentioned in Part V of this series, namely what to do with the employees of the IRS when that agency is reduced. In order to increase enforcement of our immigration laws and auditing of businesses to ensure their compliance in not hiring illegal aliens, many of these individuals could be moved over to the Immigration and Naturalization agency, thus solving a manpower requirement there without having to increase the number of government employees.

-October 16, 2015

What to Do – Part V

October 9, 2015 Frank Kuchar

A debate can easily be had over what is the greatest threat to the US today. Credible arguments can be made for international threats from ISIS, Russia, China and Korea. However dangerous as those threats are thanks to the deliberate evisceration of our military and global strategy by this president, the more immediate threat comes from within, again thanks to Obama and his minions in Congress as this threat is not only a danger to us in the form of terrorism, but even more so in financial terms. So, as we are looking at solutions to corralling the government’s runaway spending we must while implementing the previous four parts I’ve suggested turn our attention to the threat of immigration, both legal and illegal.

It cannot be denied that illegal immigration places a heavy burden upon our financial stability as these individuals cost schools, cities, counties, and states, in additional to the federal government, much more than they can ever hope to contribute. In addition they take jobs that could/should go to Americans (despite the false argument that they only do jobs that Americans won’t do), thus compounding more financial worries upon those unemployed and straining government budgets at every level.

Legal immigration also poses a problem in that those we allow in many times are either highly educated and thus complete for jobs against native Americans with similar education and training (think H1B visas) or they are from the lower economic rungs and offer little to our economy.

So, in approaching the issue of immigration both legal and illegal must be addressed. Several argue that we should put a moratorium on all legal immigration, and that would be a needed first step in that arena. We should not be letting immigrants into the country unless we at first are certain they are needed. 2015 America is not the same as 1900 America (or earlier).

As for illegal immigrants, there are several things that must be done, all of which have been put forth by various other individuals (for the best information on the threat of illegal immigration I highly recommend the documentary series produced by Dennis Michael Lynch: They Come to America – I, II, III).

First, the economic magnet that draws them here must be dismantled. As Milton Friedman stated, you cannot have a welfare state and open borders as those pouring across into the country for all the “free stuff” will overwhelm and sink the system. This means no more public education, no in-state tuition at universities and colleges, no free medical care at hospital emergency rooms, no food stamps, no housing assistance, etc. It also means heavy penalties for businesses and individuals who hire illegals. The enforcement of our immigration laws will not require an expansion of our government, and I’ll outline how in the next installment of this series.

Finally, those caught here must be deported back to their country of origin and the cost of such action be imposed via a corresponding reduction of foreign aid to the governments of those countries or the imposition of a tariff fee on imports from them (limited strictly to the cost of deportation). This is the only way to incentivize those governments to focus on improving their own lot instead of sending their problems of impoverishment to our shores.

As you can see, the solution to our looming fiscal crisis is not just limited to “reduce spending” or elimination of duplication in the government or even unconstitutional spending. All of these suggestions I have put forth are part of a fabric that most be woven and implemented together if any are to succeed. The next piece of the puzzle is the other side of the fiscal coin, namely, revenue and how it is collected.

-October 9, 2015

What to Do – Part IV

October 9, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Well, the fiscal year ended Wednesday and again our elected officials, both in the administration and in Congress failed to fulfill their fiscal duty to create and pass a budget for this new fiscal year we have just entered. Instead they passed yet another “continuing resolution” to spend, spend, and spend with no regard to the constitutionality of what our money is being spent on or the increase in the debt burden they have placed upon us and future generations.

While Congress should be putting the brakes on spending, prioritizing and eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, subsidies and duplicative programs, repealing unlawfully created regulations, the issues of welfare reform and immigration must also be addressed as they are huge contributors to our budget and deficit.

The great Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, correctly pointed out that you cannot have a welfare state and open borders as those in the lower levels of other countries will pour into the country seeking the freebies offered by that welfare system. This is precisely what we see happening today and why these two issues are so closely intertwined and must be addressed together (along with the other previously discussed steps).

We had taken great steps towards welfare reform and a reduction in the welfare rolls in the 1990s’ but subsequent administrations and congresses have undone those reforms and instead broadened and multiplied the programs offered. We must return to the mindset we had in place twenty years ago, build upon it, and further work to reduce those programs and costs. If government will quit interfering in the economy so that it can grow and expand, then such programs will become less essential. As I said with the bureaucracies in a previous essay, they obviously cannot be eliminated immediately, but they too need to be prioritized, duplications eliminated, and a step-down plan put in place that will wean us from them.

Tied to that, as mentioned, is the need to secure our borders, which topic I will address in the next installment. In closing this essay, I leave you with these words of wisdom from MIlton Friedman’s classic work, Free to Choose, which contains an excellent section on the Welfare State:

“The waste is distressing, but it is the least of the evils of the paternalistic programs that have grown to such massive size. Their major evil is their effect on the fabric of our society. They weaken the family; reduce the incentive to work, save, and innovate; reduce the accumulation of capital; and limit our freedom. These are the fundamental standards by which they should be judged.”

– October 2, 2015