Price of government pork way too high

Aberdeen American News ^ | September 18, 2008 | Art Marmorstein

[ancientart]

“The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses.” - Juvenal, Satire X

Of all the Supreme Court decisions of recent months, the one I find most interesting is Boumediene v. Bush, the case in which, by 5-4 decision, the court extended habeas corpus rights to prisoners being held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, included in his argument a fascinating summary of English constitutional history, covering everything from Magna Carta to the adoption of the British Bill of Rights of 1689.

This is exactly the kind of thing historians love to see - historical analysis used to illuminate contemporary issues.

One major problem, however: While I would have loved seeing Kennedy's arguments in any forum where there is ongoing debate and discussion, it's enormously frustrating to see them practically set in stone by court fiat.

Kennedy didn't choose his sources well at all. He cites the 1953 edition of Hall and Albion's History of England and the British Empire as if it were some sort of hallowed authority. This is absurd. The text is outdated and, like all such general college texts, oversimplified. I don't know a single contemporary historian who would agree with their analysis of the relationship between Charles I and parliamentCQ.

But now we're stuck. We have a Supreme Court decision based in part on a faulty understanding of history - and practically no chance to correct it.

Now a single decision of this type is no big deal. The trouble is we've had hundreds of such decisions, each set in stone, each chipping away a small bit of our freedom. The usurpation of our decision-making abilities by the courts, along with the expansion of federal government at the expense of state and local government, has meant that, over time, we've lost the right to govern ourselves.

Got a great idea for reforming the schools? Run for school board. Only it won't do any good, because court decisions and federal interference have all bit eliminated the ability of local school districts to innovate.

Got some great ideas for reducing crime or poverty? Run for state House. Only it won't do any good because court decisions and federal interference have all but eliminated the ability of state government to innovate.

And so what's left for us to expect from government? Oh, maybe a little more than bread and circuses. How about pork, pork and more pork? Subsidies for this. Subsidies for that. Bridges to nowhere.

Along with the pork, more government strings, still less freedom - and still less incentive for hoping for anything else from government.

But I think lots of us do still hope. With each new government scandal, with every new discovery of a Kwame Kilkpatrick, or a Jim McGreevey or an Eliot Spitzer or a Mark Foley, we hope that Americans will finally start singing with us Jonathan Edwards' classic 1960's hit "Sunshine Go Away Today."

Look: These people can't even run their own lives. Are we going to let them run ours?

The plaintiffs in Boumediene v. Bush fought hard to establish the principle that even enemy combatants had constitutionally guaranteed freedoms the government could not usurp. Those who love America ought to be fighting just as hard to win back some of our lost freedoms - even it means giving up our favorite piece of government pork.

[ari-freedom]

the pork is actually the glue that drives support for even larger government programs. It’s really about buying power and incumbency

[Tublecane]

“the pork is actually the glue that drives support for even larger government programs”

Bingo! Once upon a time, someone figured out that it’s easier to make a living by stealing it from other people. We’ve had governments ever since.

[JoanneSD]

If Barry is the president, being a mooooslem, he will allow no pork.. in any way shape or form..