It looks like Congress managed cobble together a budget deal that will fund government for the rest of the fiscal year.

At the last minute, lawmakers passed a short-term spending measure to fund the behemoth for another week, after substantively agreeing on a budget bill for the rest of the year.

Good work! That only took half of the year.

The proposed budget snips off about $38 billion in spending.

Lawmakers patted themselves on the back, calling themselves “courageous” for agreeing to the “biggest cuts in history.”

“Both sides have had to make tough choices.  But tough choices is what this job’s all about,” Sen. Harry Reid said.

Truth is, Congress just kicked the can down the road a little further and put off making any actual tough decisions until the next time around. They couldn’t even agree to defund Planned Parenthood, a no-brainer when you’re functionally broke.

And herein lies the problem – our so-called leaders can’t bring themselves to behave as if a problem actually exists. Few politicians have the guts to take the kind of action any half-witted family takes when faced with the prospect of spending more money that it takes in.

Here’s a little perspective.

According to the Treasury Department, the federal government spent $1.0528 trillion during the month of March – that’s trillion with a T – a staggering eight times more than it took in.

That’s like a family netting $2,000 per month spending $16, 000. It doesn’t take an accountant to figure out that kind of overspending represents a significant problem. Heck, you don’t even need to stay at a Holiday Inn Express to comprehend the looming fiscal disaster.

Clearly, that kind of deficit requires a significant change in spending; the kind of change in spending that hurts. The family can’t just switch from ordering steak to ordering salad at the nice restaurant. It must quit going to restaurants. Any restaurants. Period.

But lawmakers – indeed many Americans – can’t even bring themselves to make superfluous cuts in spending.

That’s because when it comes time to actually wield the budget axe, everybody suddenly believes their program “vital.”

Take the press release issued on behalf of the Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery in Kentucky. The president’s budget planned proposed eliminating funding for the National Fish Hatcheries. The Wolf Creek hatchery operates on an annual budget of about $907,000 of federal tax dollars every year.

“This would be a needless monumental loss to the county and state,” Jeanie Schureman said in the release.

She goes on to justify the existence of the fish hatchery program, pointing out its income generation.

“A return of more than $53 for every tax dollar spent to operate the hatchery,” Schureman said.

She needs an economics lesson.

The fact that fish hatcheries need a tax subsidy to operate proves them an inefficient allocation of resources. If fish hatcheries really constituted a money-making opportunity, an enterprising private individual or entity would undoubtedly step in. That $907,000 dollars actually represents capital diverted from more economically viable activities to hatching fish. While it may create $53 for every dollar spent, that dollar spent in a market driven activity would undoubtedly yield far more.

Not to say fish hatching doesn’t benefit somebody. Perhaps many somebodies. But all too often, we only look at the visible benefits and fail to consider the less easily recognizable costs of government programs. While certain segments of the population reap the rewards, the nation as a whole loses out.

The reapers call the programs “vital.” The general public buys into the sob story. And the government keeps on spending. And spending. And spending.

Economic realities aside, a bigger issue exists.

Vital or not, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to fund fish hatcheries.

In fact, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to fund a vast majority of the things it funds. The framers intended the states to retain authority on such internal policies.

James Madison wrote, “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

If Kentuckians really believe fish hatcheries vital, the state can set that priority and fund them. And some poor schmuck in Texas doesn’t have to bear the cost.

The federal government dug its fiscal hole with a backhoe powered by constitutional usurpation. The path back lies in limiting the fed to its constitutionally prescribed role.

This will require pain, sacrifice and time. We didn’t dig the hole in a day. It took over 75 years of ever-expanding government. It will require that Americans reject the notion that federal spending is “vital.” And it will require us to shed the notion that the solution to every problem lies among the marbled monuments in Washington D.C.

The stark reality is that the United States is functionally bankrupt. While we may like our various federally funded programs, and we may even personally reap the benefits, we can’t afford them.

We never could.

That’s why the framers sought to limit the power of the federal government. They understood bigger is generally badder.

It’s time to shrink the behemoth.

I have many fond memories of time spent with my grandfather. Some of the earliest are of me watching him watch professional wrestling. My grandfather’s one vice was professional wrestling, and boy did he get into it. He would laugh and slap his knee when the bad guys got slapped around by the good guys. He expressed suspicious optimism when a villain switched sides, and “knew it all along” when a good guy made an alliance with the bad. Today, I can only laugh at professional wrestling: choreographed combat, outrageous speeches, and staged news conferences. It’s really a brilliant form of entertainment, playing on the emotions of fans by exploiting their desire to identify with someone they see as good, while opposing someone they view as bad. In the ring, heroes and villains pretend (convincingly) to dislike one another and everything they’re about, but in reality, after the match is over, they’re slapping each other on the back and sharing a beer. But in public, significant effort is exerted in preserving the illusion – good guys share a locker room apart from the bad guys, but ride to the arena on the same tour bus.

Observing our two party system in the United States, it strikes me that it’s much like professional wrestling – choreographed combat. Most political observers can quickly identify the fringe members of each party, those who could potentially go either way – the players who, with the safety of reelection passed, switch parties to an outcry of “I knew it all along!” And what about the bipartisan alliances, when we hope our good guy is positively influencing the bad guy, but fear the consequences of the alliance. And when our party of choice soundly defeats the opposition, we hoot and holler, confident that, finally, our guys get the spotlight for a while. And certainly we know that it’s only for a while, because it’s all really just a choreographed show, exploiting our desire to identify with something. And at the end of it all, they’re sharing the same tour bus.

I recently re-read some of the writings of John Stuart Mill. In his Chapters on Socialism, published in 1879, he discussed the emerging philosophies of socialism and communism, reporting, rather than editorializing, about the debate between competing political ideologies. As I read Chapters, I felt as though I was listening to a modern day discussion that still rages on between American liberals and conservatives. Owners v. Workers. Capital v. Labor. Have v. Have-not. As I thought about what I was reading, it struck me that this debate has been going on for over 100 years, but with plenty of evidence on either side. Through the Twentieth Century, free(er) markets have outperformed and outlasted centrally planned socialist economies. From the complete failures of Soviet and Chinese systems, to the emerging failures in Western Europe, it seems clear that a centrally planned economy based on the absolute redistribution of wealth will fail. And, to the extent that a mixed economy like those of Germany, France, Greece, and Great Britain is able to fumble along for some time, the buck must stop somewhere, usually on a steep cliff overlooking complete economic and political collapse.

Even in the United States, a mixed economy for sure, but still the freest market in the world, we’re faced with serious consequences resulting from our own attempts at central planning and wealth redistribution. So why are we still having this debate? Why does the middle class, the largest piece of the electorate, vacillate between conservatism and liberalism? The answer lies, perhaps, in our professional wrestling analogy.

Political and economic writers throughout history have recognized that any government, once in power, will tend to grow in power and authority until it is replaced or placed in check. Human nature, as recognized by Thomas Hobbes, tends to seek power, authority, and recognition. Once gained, power will increase through the ambition and self-interest of those in power. This realization is why the Revolutionary generation founded the United States (and every member state) with a written constitution – with hope (rather than true belief) that a written constitution could better limit the inevitable tendency in government to increase its own power and control. This constitution was written with the Lockean philosophy that the only legitimate function of government was to protect individual liberty from encroachment. Unfortunately for Locke’s ideal, government itself, as a human institution, will also be driven by ambition and self-interest leading it to itself encroach upon the very liberty it was designed to protect.

In the United States today, few have experienced life in a tyrannical, totalitarian, or violently anarchical state. For over two hundred years we have held peaceful elections, enjoyed relative economic stability and growth, and sat as the most influential military and economic power in the world. Under such conditions, it is difficult (impossible for some) to even imagine how liberty could die in America. But it can die, and with each passing decade through the Twentieth Century until today, the federal government has grown in size, scope and power with a corresponding decrease in the real and potential liberty of American citizens. Those who disagree with this assertion, believing that the size of government bears no relation to liberty, are simply wrong, for every power that government can exercise over an individual is consequently a power that the individual cannot exercise over himself. And the power to govern oneself is liberty.

That government, as an institution, acts self-interestedly by increasing in power, size, and influence presents a more accurate view of the class warfare discussed in Mill’s Chapters on Socialism. Our debates in politics often revolve around convincing the middle class electorate of who their enemies in society are. Democrats would have the middle and lower classes believe that their enemy is the capitalist and the wealthy who build their wealth and power through the labor and ingenuity of the middle class – thus, socialist and liberal policy promises to level the playing field and make sure that everyone gets what’s due to them through egalitarianism and wealth redistribution. Republicans would have the upper and middle classes believe that their enemy is the poor who take advantage of socialist, liberal, and Democrat policies that favor wealth redistribution and unfairly tax the labor and ingenuity of the middle class. While there’s a kernel of truth in the argument of each side, the reality is that these aren’t two polar opposites vying for votes – it’s more along the line of choreographed political theater that plays on the emotions of American voters.

A more accurate view of class warfare is to see American society in two segments: a governing class and everyone else. The governing class consists not just of politicians, but a massive federal bureaucracy that in self-interest seeks to grow in size, power, and influence. Regardless of individual political affiliations, the people who make up the government class, out of their own self interest, will stop at nothing to maintain the existence from which they derive income, lifestyle, and influence. Democrats present voters with a shadowy bogeyman portrayed as the insidious rich man who gets richer off the back of the middle class while Republicans present their own bogeyman in the person of the welfare recipient and his socialist paymaster who taxes the working to pay the lazy. In actuality it’s more like the heroes and villains of professional wrestling, who play their part in the big show put on for those watching. For the wrestlers, it’s to hide the fact that they’re all just paid actors who follow the script. For the government, it’s to control the debate and keep voters fighting about symptoms rather than focusing on the real problem – that there is a government class, producing nothing of social or economic value, that subsists on the taxes taken from the upper, middle, and lower classes, that can contribute social and economic value.

Get the New Book Today!

By controlling the debate, this government class keeps voters focused on the results of bad government instead of the cause of bad government. In the midterm election, Republicans convinced voters that they were the new good guys – the Democrats had their chance. Two years into a Democrat administration was long enough to know that they couldn’t solve the ills of society. Strangely, voters apparently forgot that Republicans were bad guys just two years ago when Barack Obama convinced them that hope, belief, and warm, fuzzy feelings could change America for the better. So, we replaced the Republican that believed government could solve all problems with the Democrat who believes government can solve all problems.

In professional wrestling, if the good guys won all the time, nobody would stay interested. When the bad guys get a little bit ahead, it creates dramatic suspense by anticipating the good-guy comeback that everyone knows is coming. Regardless of how one views Republicans and Democrats, as either good or bad, when the other party wins, the suspense in anticipation of revenge keeps the audience interested, and distracted.

Government is the problem. Actually, the problem is that nobody realizes that government is the problem because they’re too focused on the problems created by government.

Voting for candidates from the two major parties will never solve the problem. As members of the governing class, they will only act in their own self-interest, which is to preserve the government class by convincing voters that somehow government can clean up the problems of government. But government can’t solve the problems created by government, because I can’t recall one government that ever voted itself out of existence.

Roger Prather [send him email] is the Communications Coordinator for the Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center

Modern American’s seem to have lost sight of essential truths clear to the country’s founders more than 200 years ago.

Today, everybody from mega agribusinesses executives to consumer advocates are lauding the Senate for passing a massive overhaul of the “food-safety” system. The legislation would grant broader inspection power to the F.D.A., allow the government to mandate product recalls, oversee farming and regulate the food production industry to an even greater degree.

“Everyone who eats will benefit,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “F.D.A. will have new tools to help ensure that we have a safer food supply that causes fewer outbreaks and illnesses.”

Benjamin Franklin would have likely taken a different view.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In fact, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act represents yet another massive expansion of federal power, much of it unconstitutional. (And before you send me emails justifying this monstrosity based on the commerce clause, please do us both a favor and do a little research on the meaning of commerce as understood by the framers. Click here.)

Sadly, if history provides any insight at all, and it usually does, this act will do nothing to actually protect the American people. It will instead serve as a tool for big corporations to gain a competitive advantage over small, local farms and food producers. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself this – why else would big companies support legislation that on its face will exact huge costs in time, money and resources?

And it will also give politicians and bureaucrats yet another lever to maneuver and manipulate for their own purposes.

True to form, power hungry politicians and progressive thinkers have churned up the American public with scare tactics to gin up support for another expansion of government power –  as always, at the expense of liberty.

Proponents say the act will protect Americans from foodborne illnesses. But does the problem justify such a massive, expensive, intrusive cure?

Not really.

According the the Centers For Disease Control, only about 1,500 people per year die from salmonella and other known foodborne pathogens. Another 3,500 people die  from illnesses stemming from unknown foodborne pathogens. Many of those deaths result from improper food handling and cooking after purchase.

Certainly, 5,000 deaths is 5,000 deaths too many. Nobody wants to see fellow Americans die. Nobody wants tainted food on grocery shelves. But protecting citizens from every danger, risk and threat is not the role of the federal government – or any government for that matter.

But nanny state politicians continue taking us for a spin on a never ending carousel. Several thousand deaths under a heavily regulated system creates the panic necessary to enact even more expansive, overreaching regulation.

Get the New Book Today!

To live life invites the risk of death. No law, act or government edict can mitigate that reality. Franklin was right. When we begin looking to others for protection from every eventuality, we necessarily give up our freedom, and in the end enjoy no greater safety.

Alexander Hamilton wrote of the threat to liberty posed by war. His reasoning applies equally to government’s other attempts to “protect” its citizens.

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

Note: the legislation passed 73-25. Click here to see how your Senators voted.

Recently an article was published at lewrockwell.com wherein the author, Kirkpatrick Sale, asserts that it was the Founders’ evident intention to establish a powerful federal government. In fact, contrary to what many constitutionalists may believe, the Constitution as framed was intended to, and was successful in, paving the way for the massive federal usurpations that plague the United States today.

Mr. Sale wants to “wake up these ‘Tenthers’ and tell them that it’s a waste of time to try to resurrect that document [the Constitution] in order to save the nation — because the growth of government and the centralization of powers is inherent in its original provisions.” In fact, proclaims Mr. Sale, the Constitution “is not a document that will lead them to liberty and sovereignty.”

Despite some of the questionable activities listed in Mr. Sale’s résumé, I shall restrict my remarks to the refutation of the theses posited by him in the lewrockwell.com article. In this brief, I shall attempt to prove that the conclusions as to the Founders’ intentions have been grossly misconstrued by Mr. Sale in a blatant effort to wrest them to fit his notion of the best method of opposing tyranny.

Before beginning his unusual exegesis of the Constitution and the words of the Founders, Mr. Sale turns his sights on the Tenth Amendment Center and opens fire. After briefly quoting a segment of the Tenth Amendment Center’s mission statement, Mr. Sale explains that the true aim of the Tenth Amendment Center is to advocate for a “rigid interpretation of that amendment reserving to the states the powers not expressly given to the Federal government.” I do not speak for the Tenth Amendment Center — their spokesmen are able and informed — but as an attorney I would advise them to plead guilty to this charge.

As for the Tenth Amendment, Mr. Sale insists that it was no more than an afterthought for the Founders whose true affinity, he claims, was for a big, powerful, supreme central authority. As evidence of the Founders’ disdain, Mr. Sale points out that this “deficiency in that Constitution” was the last of ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Every student of American history and the Constitution should be aware that a great many bills were considered for inclusion into the Bill of Rights. After lengthy congressional deliberation, however, 12 of the proposed measures were selected for a final vote, 10 of which passed. On December 15, 1791 these 10 amendments were ratified by the requisite number of states, thus being incorporated into the original constitution (one of the two “lost” amendments was ratified in 1992 and became the 27th Amendment). So, the Tenth Amendment is no more “at the end” of the Bill of Rights than is the First Amendment as a matter of legislative history.

With the Tenth Amendment Center and unincorporated “Tenthers” thus dismissed, Mr. Sale wheels around and takes aim at the Constitution Party. This group also suffers, he says, from a woeful lack of understanding of constitutional principles. Says Mr. Sale, the Constitution Party “has the idea that the nation’s problems can be solved by ‘a renewed allegiance’ to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and hence a return to ‘limited government.’ ”

Again, I’ve not been retained by the Constitution Party to represent their interests, but I’ll take this one pro bono and advise them to plead “no contest” to the charges levied against them.

The problem with all of these constitutionalists, argues Mr. Sale, is that they don’t understand that this “bloated, overstretched, intrusive, and unwieldy government” is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they created a powerful central government. Such usurpations, he insists, are “inherent in its [the Constitution’s] original provisions.” In his words, “we have a big overgrown government because that’s what the Founding Fathers founded….”

Before my ultimate rebuttal, I will allow Mr. Sale to present his final few pieces of evidence of the “true” purpose behind the government formed by the “renegade Congress” that met “in secret.” If it please the Court.

Turn your attention, Mr. Sale demands, to the phrase “right there at the start” of the Preamble to the Constitution. “We, the People,” it reads, formed this government. If the “amorphous ‘people’” control the government, warns Mr. Sale (from behind the skirts of the noble Patrick Henry), then they could “willy-nilly ignore the individual states” and thus obliterate all vestiges of the sovereignty of the several states.

There are two problems with this interpretation. First, there is the problem of context and second, there is the problem of comprehension.

Simply reading the rest of the paragraph would solve the first weakness in Mr. Sale’s analysis of the Preamble. The sentence he quotes does indeed recognize the natural sovereignty of the people (an unassailable principle of republicanism); however, it continues by recognizing the pre-existing sovereignty of another entity — the states. In fuller context, the Preamble states, “We, the People, of the United States of America….” Therefore, the Founders memorialized their correct understanding of self-government: that is, that we, the people, are the ultimate sovereigns (so endowed by our Creator), but we have established intermediaries (the states) and these too are to be represented in the new government.

As for Mr. Sale’s conclusion that “ ‘the people’ spoke through Congress,” he is partially correct. The people do speak through Congress by way of the popular election of members of the House of Representatives. Perhaps Mr. Sale is unaware that the legislative branch as established by the conspiring Founders is bicameral. The other house of Congress, the Senate, as originally constituted, was the branch wherein the interests of the states were to be protected. The fact that the 17th Amendment destroyed this defense against the unchecked growth of the central authority is a crime of which others are to be accused, not the Founders. In fact, to blame the Founders for the lack of state representation in Congress is akin to blaming homebuilders for the damage later caused by termites.

In several of the letters collected in the volume that has come to be known as The Federalist Papers, no lesser lights that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay argued vigorously for the Constitution’s model of federal arrangement. Please read Federalist 9, 10, 45, 51, and 62 for a primer on this subject. As coroners examining the lifeless bodies of the dead republics of history, the Founders sought an inoculation for the fatal malady that affected all self-governing nations that came before. The cure they devised was federalism: co-equal and co-existent sovereignties, each with separate spheres of power. As for the particular ratio of the ingredients in this tonic, Madison wrote in Federalist No. 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.” No further questions, Your Honor.

Finally, in his accusation that the Founders’ insidious purpose to “abolish and annihilate all State governments” is revealed by the havoc that has been wreaked by the so-called Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause, Mr. Sale is again seeking indictment of the innocent for a crime they did not commit.

As with his earlier assertions, here too, Mr. Sale mistakes the intent of the Founders for the intent of subsequent usurpers sitting as justices of the Supreme Court. It was not in Philadelphia that the crime Mr. Sale is prosecuting was committed. It was in Washington, D.C. at the dawn of the Progressive Era that the Supreme Court destroyed the foundational doctrine of enumerated powers. Then, about a year later, it split the Bill of Rights into two separate and unequal parts: those rights that it deemed fundamental and those that are not so protected.

Get the New Book Today!

In the first case, the Court created from whole cloth a new General Welfare clause with not a single thread from the one woven by the Founders remaining in the new garment. In the next case, the Court converted the Commerce Clause from a shield against governmental overreaching into a powerful weapon of legislative tyranny. There is no basis in natural or constitutional law for this judicial gerrymandering.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I leave the case in your capable hands. You are called to decide whether, as Mr. Sale avers, the Framers were “centralists” and “nationalists” who all along, despite their own words to the contrary, secretly intended to establish in the original Constitution a federal leviathan capable of and committed to abolishing state sovereignty — or, as I have herein demonstrated, that as with the wheat field in the parable spoken by our Lord, while we slept an enemy (in this case, the Supreme Court and a combining cabal of legislative and executive despots) has unlawfully trespassed and cruelly sown tares into the fruitful plot planted long ago by our noble Founding Fathers.

Thank you.

Apart from his work as a journalist, Joe Wolverton, II is a professor of American Government at Chattanooga State and was a practicing attorney until 2009. He lives in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Since 2000, Joe has been a featured contributor to The New American magazine. Most recently, he has written a cover story article on the Tea Party movement, as well as a five-part series on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.

This article originally appeared in The New American magazine – and is republished here with permission of the author

The “Pledge to America” recently unveiled by House Republicans is more Republican gobbledygook. Republican promises to cut waste, fraud, abuse, and earmarks, and institute reform, change, privatization, and accountability are always so vague, misleading, and exception-ridden that they are – without exception – absolutely worthless.

Republicans are such hypocrites that even while they preach smaller and less intrusive government they pass legislation to increase the size and scope of government.

On the very day (September 23) that the House Republicans issued their worthless “Pledge to America,” they also voted in overwhelming numbers along with Democrats to pass four pieces of legislation that violate the very Pledge that Republicans maintain they will adhere to as a majority in the House.

Plan 4 in the Republican Pledge is the promise to “to reform Congress and restore trust.” Under the paragraph titled “Adhere To the Constitution,” there appears this statement:

For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

This is absolutely correct. However, what the Republicans forget to mention is that it is Republicans who controlled the U.S. House of Representatives during the last six years of Clinton’s presidency and the first six years of Bush’s presidency. Republicans are the ones who have ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Republicans are the ones who have drafted unclear and muddled laws. Republicans are the ones who have shown a lack of respect for clear Constitutional limits and authorities. Republicans are the ones who have allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year.

Here are the four pieces of legislation that an overwhelming majority of House Republicans voted to pass on the same day they published their Pledge:

• The Family Health Care Accessibility Act
• The Emergency Medic Transition Act
• The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act
• The Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act

I wonder what clauses would be included with these bills citing the specific constitutional authority upon which they are justified?

The Family Health Care Accessibility Act of 2010 (H.R. 1745) amends the Public Health Service Act “to deem volunteer practitioners at health centers as employees of the Public Health Service for purposes of any civil action that may arise due to providing services to patients at such health centers.” This bill was introduced in the House by a Republican, Timothy Murphy of Pennsylvania. It passed by a vote of 417 to 1. The lone no vote was the heroic Ron Paul (R-TX). One hundred and seventy Republicans voted for the bill. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to have anything to do with health care, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The Emergency Medic Transition Act of 2010 (H.R. 3199) amends the Public Health Service Act “to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to state entities with jurisdiction over emergency medical personnel to provide for the expedited training and licensing, as emergency medical technicians, of veterans who received training as such a technician while serving in the Armed Forces.” Only five Republicans voted against this bill. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to have anything to do with health care, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5710) amends and reauthorizes the controlled substance monitoring program of the Public Health Service Act to “foster the establishment of State-administered controlled substance monitoring systems.” This bill comes with a price tag of $15 million for fiscal year 2011 and $10 million each year for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. It requires the states receiving a federal grant under this Act to submit “aggregate data and other information” to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to “facilitate prescriber use of the State’s controlled substance monitoring system” and “educate prescribers on the benefits of the system both to them and society.” This bill was introduced in the House by a Republican, Ed Whitfield of Kentucky. It passed by a vote of 384–32. The Republican vote was 140–31. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to even designate a controlled substance, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act of 2010 (H.R. 5756), also known as the TRAIN ACT of 2010, has an official title that concisely sums up its purpose:

To amend subtitle D of title I of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to provide grants and technical assistance to University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service to improve services rendered to children and adults on the autism spectrum, and their families, and for other purposes.

In awarding grants under this legislation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must give priority to applicants that are “(1) minority institutions that have demonstrated capacity to meet the requirements of this Act and provide services to individuals with autism and their families; or (2) located in a state with one or more underserved populations.” The vote on this bill was 393–24. The Republican vote was 167–24. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to do anything about autism or any other medical condition, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The only reason Republicans ever look good is when they are out of power and oppose the Democrats on major pieces of legislation like Obamacare, extending unemployment benefits, increasing HUD appropriations, etc. When all of their actions – not their just plans, promises, and pledges – are compared to even an imperfect standard like the Constitution it is apparent that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The sound of thundering elephant feet first began to resonate right here in the Bluegrass State.

Republican Rand Paul easily beat Democrat Jack Conway by an 11 point margin in the Kentucky U.S. Senate race. The early 7 p.m. call for Paul was merely the beginning of a pachyderm stampede.

Republicans picked up 61 seats in the U.S. House, and they could end up with as many as a 66 seats by the time its all said and done. Democrats will still control the Senate, but the GOP made gains there too, snapping up at least six seats. It was the biggest single election power shift in 70 years.

Here in Kentucky, Republicans rode the wave, gaining seats in both the Kentucky State House and Senate. The GOP took control of seven new House seats and strengthened its Senate majority with a two, perhaps three seat pickup.

While Republicans trumpet their victory, they would do well to ground themselves in an important reality. This election was not a ringing endorsement of the GOP. It was instead a repudiation of progressive ideology. It was a backlash against bailouts, deficits and federal health care mandates. It was a protest against rapidly expanding government power. The newest Kentucky Senator seems to understand the message sent by American voters on Tuesday.

“It’s a message that I will carry with me on day one. It’s a message of fiscal sanity. It’s a message of limited Constitutional government and balanced budgets,” Paul said.

The hue in our nation’s capitol shifted from dark blue to purple on Tuesday. This Republican tsunami, as some have called it, will certainly change the political landscape in Washington D.C. But if Republicans don’t bring about some fundamental changes, this new crop of representatives will likely enjoy short careers. Senator elect Marco Rubio from Florida articulated the reality for Republicans perfectly.

“And we make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.”

The question remains. Will the GOP squander this second chance? Will GOP leaders do any better adhering to constitutional principles than their Democratic brethren? Are the American people suddenly safe from government overreach now that Republicans will have some say in Washington?

I fear not.

Many Republicans talk a good game when it comes to limiting government, and protecting defending the Constitution. But their track record doesn’t quite live up to their rhetoric. If history teaches us anything, it reveals that federal power tends to expand unabated regardless of the party in charge in D.C.

We the people simply can’t rely on Washington to solve our problems. Asking the federal government to reign in its own power is akin to asking a lion to quit hunting, or the fish to quit swimming. It goes against its very nature.

The people must hold the feds accountable. The Constitution is a compact between the people of the United States and their federal government. The mechanism we have to protect our freedom and liberty is through the States. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Liberty loving Americans can certainly celebrate the outcome of these midterm elections. But we will not ultimately win the war to restore the proper balance of power between the State and federal governments in Washington D.C. That battle must be waged in Frankfort and Tallahassee. In Austin and Sacramento. In every state capitol across the fruited plain.

Originally Published November 7, 2002 at WorldNetDaily

John Adams: “The favorites of parties, although they have always some virtues, have always many imperfections. Many of the ablest tongues and pens have, in every age, been employed in the foolish, deluded, and pernicious flattery of one set of partisans, and in furious, prostitute invectives against another; but such kinds of oratory never had any charms for me; and if I must do one or the other, I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

As a result of Tuesday’s elections, we can expect the growth in government to continue unabated – and probably to accelerate.

We can be reasonably sure that the new Congress will pass a flood of bills that intrude government ever-more-deeply into our lives, as well as make government more costly (and even more inefficient).

How can I be so sure?

Because the winners in the congressional races are virtually all advocates of big government. The winning incumbents have never bothered to introduce a single bill to reduce government in any significant way, while they have been reliable supporters of all sorts of new big-government schemes.

The few new congressmen and senators come from the same mold. In their campaigns, they told us about their grand plans to “fix” the nation’s schools, get government involved in prescription drugs, and use your money to take care of anyone who says he needs it.

Big government, big government, big government.

Mea culpa

And now I must offer a confession.

I wrote this article Monday evening, before the elections.

And yet, I stand by every word of it.

It doesn’t matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won control of the Senate. Government will get bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, and less efficient.

It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans won control of the House. Government will get bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, and less efficient.

Nothing has changed in the past 75 years.

• We elect a Republican Congress – and government gets bigger.
• We elect a Democratic Congress – and government gets bigger.
• We elect a Republican president – and government gets bigger.
• We elect a Democratic president – and government gets bigger.
• Congress passes a “tax cut” – and government gets bigger.
• Congress makes “tough budget cuts” – and government gets bigger.

Despite what they tell you, there really is no significant difference between the two major parties. They are both devoted to power, to big government, and to rewarding those with the most political influence.

Your culpa

If you voted for a Democrat or a Republican, you didn’t waste your vote.

You used it to congratulate your candidate for all his big-spending schemes. So you can take part of the credit for the coming increases in government.

You may have thought you were voting to limit the damage – to prevent the “greater of two evils” from being elected. But that isn’t the way your vote will be interpreted.

Your candidate will look at his victory and say, in effect, “The public has endorsed my plan to ‘fix’ government schools with a new government program. The voters have said they like my ideas to involve government in prescription drugs. The people have spoken, and they have endorsed every vote I’ve made in Congress and/or every new government program I outlined in my campaign.”

Oh sure, your candidate may have said that government is too big or too intrusive. But that doesn’t mean he’ll do anything to stop it.

Republicans complain loudly about Democratic spending programs – and then vote for them.

Democrats complain loudly about invasions of civil liberties and a reckless foreign policy – and then vote for them.

And your vote has told them that you endorse what they’re doing. Whatever you thought your motivation was, nothing says ‘I love big government’ like your vote for someone who is supporting big government in Congress.

In other words, when you vote for the “lesser of two evils,” you shouldn’t be shocked when what you get is evil.

No, a vote for a Republican or Democrat isn’t a wasted vote. It’s a self-destructive vote – a vote for the very things you’ve spent the past two years complaining about.

No culpa

If you voted Libertarian, you at least know you didn’t endorse big government. Since Libertarian vote totals usually aren’t announced on election night, you may not have been able to make any kind of “statement.”

But at least you don’t have to blame yourself for endorsing big government.

The future

It may seem that you have to vote for the lesser of evils among the major-party candidates.

But since government grew just as rapidly with Ronald Reagan as president as with Bill Clinton in the White House, and since the Republican Congress expanded government at the same speed as the Democratic Congress, it’s obvious that your vote doesn’t change anything.

There is no lesser of evils between the two major parties.

Your vote achieves only one thing: It tells the people you voted for that you love big government – that there’s no program they can support that’s so bad that you won’t vote for them anymore.

Your vote provided a big boost for big government.

Is that what you wanted?

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation.  See his website.

The visiting team trails 21-14 as the final seconds tick off the clock. It’s fourth-and-goal at the 1-yard line. The quarterback takes his place under center as a deafening roar rises up from the partisan home crowd. The quarterback takes the snap, turns and smacks the ball into the running back’s gut. The back plunges forward, legs churning for the end zone. He looks left, darts right and leaps toward the goal line. A mighty collision as a 240 pound linebacker meets him mid-air. The impact throws the ball carrier backward and he tumbles to the ground, a half yard short of the end zone. After a moment of silence, the home fans erupt in jubilation as the horn sounds ending the game.

But wait. A sudden movement draws the crowd’s attention toward the referee. He runs along the goal line, both arms raised high, signaling a touchdown. The fans groan in displeasure. Home players stand stunned. The coach goes apoplectic on the sideline. The running back clearly crashed to the turf well short of a touchdown.

Several minutes pass as officials huddle closely together in consultation. Then the referee keys his mic and offers an explanation.

“Even though the runner was down short of the end zone, we feel he was close enough to warrant granting him the touchdown. We believe it is in the best interest of the fans, and of the league in general, for this game to continue into overtime. The rules reserve a certain interpretive latitude to officials. The running back’s effort certainly deserves a reward. The touchdown stands.”

A ridiculous scenario, you say? The referee can’t arbitrarily ignore the rules of the game, even if it is for the better, you argue?

Indeed.

Yet progressives assert equally ridiculous notions when it come to applying the rules specified by the Constitution governing the United States.

In a Sept. 21 Washington Post column, Richard Cohen asserts:

This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.

The Constitution provides a framework, the rulebook if you will, for government. Each clause, each principle, was carefully crafted for a specific reason. The entire document was meant to constrain and control federal power. When we begin to ignore and rewrite various checks and balances written into the Constitution by the framers, we tear at the very fabric of the Republic. And we run the risk of unleashing power that will soon wash away the freedoms and liberties the founders so cherished.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

A football game would degenerate into chaos without adherence to the rulebook. If referees could arbitrarily award touchdowns, the game would cease to have any real meaning. Can you imagine the ridicule that would befall an official calling the NFL rulebook a living breathing document?

Ignoring the precepts of the Constitution creates the same type of chaos in government. The safeguards that our founders so carefully formulated to protect individual liberty erode away. Arbitrary power becomes the defining instrument of government.

Progressives say the Constitution must be reinterpreted and molded to fit the times. The same holds true for the rules of football, and the game has certainly change and evolved over the years. But referees don’t simply ignore the rules. Changes in the game flow out of changes to the rulebook. Committees meet. Discussions occur. Then votes are cast. Only after following a carefully prescribed procedure do substantive changes in the game take place.

Get the New Book Today!

Likewise, procedures exist to change the Constitution – the amendment process.

But progressives like Cohen would rather not be bothered with such tedious procedures. They see things that need doing, so they just go ahead and do them, ignoring the rule book and make things up as they go along.

Progressives may desire the best for the country. But they are as arrogant as they are good intentioned. They believe that they hold the best solutions, therefore, they should not have to adhere to the rules. They view the Constitution not as a protection for the people, but as an obstacle to overcome on the way to bigger and better things. Progressives know best and shouldn’t be bothered with trivialities such as taking the Constitution “too seriously”.

The Constitution spells things out in plain language. With a little study, we can easily determine the intent of the framers. But progressives find new meanings, twisting words into unrecognizable precepts and simply ignoring others.

We would be wise to heed the words of Samuel Adams.

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”

*******

When President Obama announced a new $50 billion stimulus plan Labor Day weekend, conservatives scoffed — and rightfully so.

Who does this guy think he’s fooling? After the $700 billion TARP bailout, the auto manufacturer bailout, and an $800 billion stimulus, does this president actually think a measly $50 billion is going to successfully turn around an economy where greater sums have failed? But the president and his party have a ready reply for such naysayers: “Imagine if we did nothing?” This open-ended question will undoubtedly continue to provide cover for stimulus-loving liberals, no matter how often conservatives insist that their government intervention simply doesn’t work.

When my commentary on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 was broadcast on WTMA, a number of callers were angry I suggested that our policy of foreign intervention does not work. No matter how much I explained how our incompetent government does more damage than good abroad, my critics sounded pretty much like Obama: “But Jack, imagine if we did nothing?”

So yes, let’s imagine these scenarios. What if the Federal Reserve had never artificially lowered interest rates and created a housing bubble? What if the Fed had not printed literally countless dollars out of thin air, further weakening our currency? What if we never had borrowed money from China to pay for bailouts and stimulus? Would we be worse off financially than if the government had never done any of these things? Any conservative worth his salt recognizes the absurdity of these arguments and also recognizes that such fear-mongering is typically used as an excuse for more statism.

But such fear-mongering is also used by those on the Right to support our equally statist foreign policy, particularly when they portray radical Islam as somehow a threat on par with the Soviet Union or talk radio’s favorite comparison, the Nazis. Although I agreed with some callers that there probably is a uniquely medieval aspect to Islam not present or as prominent in other major religions, I asked, “Why did Americans not have to worry about Islamic terrorism in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s? What has changed? Islam? Or our foreign policy?” The question answers itself in the sense that we don’t have to “imagine” what might happen if we “did nothing” in the Middle East today, precisely because when we did little to nothing decades ago, there was no terrorist threat to the United States.

A few of my critics immediately and predictably called me an “isolationist” in much the same way Obama now chides conservative Republicans as belonging to the “Party of No” for opposing every new government intervention the Democrats come up with. Government must do something, you see, and no doubt Obama would readily paint anti-stimulus Republicans as some sort of domestic, economic “isolationists” if such jargon came into fashion. Luckily for conservative hawks, such jargon is well-established but is no less absurd. Compared to how engaged we are today in the Middle East, did the U.S. have an “isolationist” policy toward that region in the first half of the 20th century? Is Switzerland asking for trouble due to their long history of neutrality or isolationism? Are 99 percent of nations “isolationist” for not mimicking the foreign policy of the U.S., arguably the most ambitious imperial power in world history?

When conservatives suggest that we should apply free market solutions to financial crises, liberals dismiss those who make such proposals as libertarian wackos who don’t realize that it was the lack of government regulation that led to such problems in the first place. This is similar to the claim many conservatives make concerning foreign policy: that if the U.S. does not drop bombs on certain Third World countries indefinitely, station troops in some Mideast sand pit for decades on end, and regulate the world stage, our refusal to do all this will somehow put Americans at risk.

It’s time for both sides to start imagining what they fear most: What if we did nothing? What if our federal government didn’t spend or borrow beyond its means or constantly meddle domestically? What if our federal government did not constantly intervene overseas, spending and borrowing well beyond its means to do so?

We used to have a Constitution which restricted our federal government from doing such damage, and if we could only return to that charter, this entire column would be a moot point. Yet the prevailing belief that government must always do something both domestically and abroad will not be discarded by the Left or Right anytime soon. Both sides have an enduring attachment to statism, born not only of their particular ideologies but political identities, and they will continue to create new problems using government intervention in the name of solving old ones, blind to the fact that the larger mess is almost entirely of their own making.

The “Southern Avenger” Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina. See his blog.

Copyright 2010, Charleston City Paper

H.R. 1586: Education Jobs and Medicade Assistance Act was signed into law on August 10^th. Many in Utah arecheering as Gov. Herbert and many state legislators are planning to accept the ‘grant’ money and strings attached to the bill. Most are not aware of the path this bill took from the House of Representatives through the Senate and finally to Pres. Obama for signature. Here’s a brief look at the titles and official statements, most recent at the top, provided by OpenCongress.org:

All Bill Titles

• Popular: Education jobs and Medicaid funding bill.

• Popular: Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act as introduced.
• Short: Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2010 as passed house.
• Short: Airport and Airway Trust Fund Financing Act of 2010 as passed house.
• Short: Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010 as passed house.
• Short: FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act as passed house.
• Short: FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act as passed senate.
• Official: An act to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. as amended by senate.
• Official: To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. as introduced.

In typical spaghetti bowl approach the national government has found a way to tie three seemingly different areas into a single bill easily marketed as a way to help teachers and children across the country. Who would not want to help teachers and children? Especially since the money is granted from the national government and the states need this help (most states anyway as there are some states fully funding their education needs).

Yet, where is the $10 billion coming from? We have to go through the bill to find “Title 1, Subtitle A, Section 101, (d) Rescission of Unobligated Balances- Of the amounts authorized under obligated for necessary expenses for an Education Jobs Fund, $10,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount under this heading shall be administered under the terms and conditions of sections 48103 and 48112 of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal year 2009, $305,500,000 are hereby rescinded.” Clear? If not you can read further clarifications under SEC. 116. IMPACTS ON AIRPORTS OF ACCOMMODATING CONNECTING PASSENGERS. The heart of the details are actually further down under Subsection C, Section121 that covers “UPDATE ON OVERFLIGHTS.” Good luck!

Where is the money coming from? According to The Washington Post article, “[t]he bill includes nearly $10 billion in new taxes on U.S. multinational corporations that do business abroad, and it rescinds after 2014 an increase in food stamp payments enacted in last year’s $862 billion stimulus package.” Yes, the additional money for temporary relief for education will eventually come, partially, by reducing food stamp payments, but that’s not until 2014 and states get the money for education today.

“It would be foolish for the State of Utah not to accept this funding, which will directly benefit Utah’s schoolchildren…I am committed to fiscal responsibility, and will continue to demand it here in Utah,” Herbert said. “But I will not put ideology before Utah’s schoolchildren.”

It was further pointed out the money was reallocated from other areas so it is not new money. The Utah House Speaker, Rep. David Clark, told a GOP Caucus meeting there are holes in the budget this money can be used to fill. The marketing efforts of the national government are quite successful in stopping ideology in its track. Don’t be foolish, take the money or it will be forced upon you anyway.

Ideology is defined many ways, especially political ideology. Mirriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary offers the following;

1: visionary theorizing
2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

This is a word that came into use after our Framers and Founders provided the unique principles of federalism. The assertions, theories, and aims of federalism created a firestorm of debate around the globe. Prior to 1789 no society had been designed with the ideological focus of self-governing by the people with life, liberty, and property being governed at the lowest level possible with states being the top level. The visionary aspects can be found in the six goals of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Federalism in Utah has been a real talking point over the past couple of years. Many feel this principle is fundamentally required for our Constitution and our federalist republic to survive. Move from this principle and we move from a system of governing that secures the blessing of liberty to one that promotes centralized planning and a more tyrannical approach required under any centralized model of governing. It is this principle, federalism, which is put at risk once again by our national government’s insistence that states take the money provided under H.R. 1586. But according to state school superintendent Larry Shumway the principle simply has no hold in this discussion.

ABC 4 reporter Don Hudson interviewed Shumway and as part of the interview he stated, “There is a provision that requires the secretary to allocate the money. And if one state doesn’t take it – he has to give the money to somebody. So, if we said, as a state, we are going to stand on principle and we won’t take the money – the money is going to be spent somewhere. That’s in the law.” The law trumps principle, federalism loses. The pesky thing about principles is if we rationalize around them often enough they become meaningless. Federalism is quickly becoming meaningless and as it dies so dies our form of society which brought us the liberty we use to hold dear.

In Felix Morley’s Freedom and Federalism he writes;

I further came to realize that the outstanding virtue of federalism, which is the distinctly American contribution to political art, is its facility in combing these antagonistic conditions (order and freedom). Since the reconciliation of freedom and order is anything but easy a federal system requires both complicated governmental machinery and a high degree of interest and understanding among its citizens. These factors make federalism a distinctly experimental system, especially vulnerable in periods of upheaval. (pg. xxiv)

Herbert, Davis and others do not mind supporting resolutions or legislation emphasizing federalism when it is easy but when it gets tough, teachers and children after all will ‘lose’ and the dollars will be spent anyway, it takes a back seat. This is a period of upheaval after all. Upheaval is today a constant in our governing world. As for this latest bribe toward centralization it does not matter the funds are temporary. When they run out where will the state get the money moving forward? Perhaps next time it will come from new money or another round of redistributed money from the FAA. Maybe we will need another form of emergency spending of dollars our children’s children will have to pay. Further reductions from Peter so that Paul may benefit while ideology gets moved from the back seat to the garage, tucked away in a box we will not open again.

The cycle will continue as the national grip over states becomes so strong there will be no stopping it, ideology be damned. Federalism is not a part-time approach to freedom. Our choice is not about taking money for schools today but stopping the cycle of nationalized education and centralized planning. The marketers sell us a different product but this ‘as seen on TV’ product does not work, we must stop buying it at some point or give in to the fact we don’t have the “high degree of interest and understanding” Morley reminds us is necessary.

How could we possibly uphold federalism and still support our teachers and children? Under federalism Utah can access the resources locked away by national government intrusion. You can learn about this by reviewing the H.B. 143: Eminent Domain Authority. State resources far exceeding the national government’s dollars are available but we don’t demand them as loudly as we demand our politicians take the money from the EduBills Act today.

It is not easy to understanding, simply look at the structure of the legislation to discover our political parties don’t want it to be. Track the logic of funding education needs by a bill summarized as “[a]n act to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.”

What can we do? First and foremost study our heritage and decide if you want federalism to be the ideology thatguides our posterity or not. If you don’t then it does not matter if elected officials only support it part of the time, it will die soon enough. If you support the ideology that should guide our posterity you will need to be involved with a high degree of interest and understanding. Involved in this issue means you will want to sign the petition “Utahn’s Against Fiscal Meltdown” (check back for active link coming soon) and explain to your representatives we must uphold the principle of federalism ALL the time; when it is easy and when it is difficult, even as difficult as the EduJobs Bill makes it.

Gary Wood is the Educational Advisor for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. Co-founder of the Heritage Training Center, focused on helping end constitutional illiteracy. With 35 years of devoted study of our Constitution his desire is to help others rediscover the inspiring heritage of the United States. Radio show host, training officer, lifetime member of the VFW and most importantly Grandpa.