>And remember, that while the President can to some extent influence new law, he does not create new law.<
I wish FReepers would think of this when Ron Pauls name comes up. They talk like he’s going to be a Communist dictator. I see him as the one and only man who cares about our CONSTITUTION.
Ironically, W. Bush tried following a second-half-of-the-19th Century Presidential philosophy, with disastrous results. He tried to restore balance in the government by encouraging the congress to make the law, and using his presidency just to execute it.
That is, he avoided proposing legislation to congress at all. Instead, he took the last few presidents’ new, and possibly unconstitutional approach, of attaching Presidential Signing Statements, explaining how he, as executive, planned to execute new laws.
This was a recipe for disaster. First, because the Republican congress had no, zero party discipline, so acted like greedy children in a candy store when the store owner had to leave in a hurry.
The second problem was that the PSSs infuriated congress as a whole, wildly reinterpreting the laws they had passed, either adding to or deleting from the laws what he wanted or didn’t want to execute.
This will have to be a big issue before the SCOTUS during the next presidency.
I would like to add that Ron Paul had “fail” written all over him, because while his goals were laudable, how he planned to bring them about were impossible.
To start with, the federal government needs to be severely hammered both in a major economic collapse, and extreme punishment at the polls. Congress will have to be loaded with freshmen.
The problem began with Frank Roosevelt. His solution to too much easy credit, which caused stock purchase on margin, resulting in the collapse of the stock market, was itself vast amounts of easy credit.
It mortgaged the future to pay for the present. And though it benefited the present very much, we are now living in the future, and the bill is due.
What is happening is a worldwide credit collapse. The eventual result is a foregone conclusion: you can no longer buy what you cannot afford. This applies from the individual level all the way up to the national and international level.
It is hard to imagine how different the US will be when it has to have a balanced budget, because no one will loan it money. The last time the US government ran out of money, J.P. Morgan, the man, stepped in to keep it from default.
The Laffer curve still applies, which even the US government has learned must be obeyed, because there will always be tax avoidance available to the wealthy. This means they cannot “tax America into prosperity”, as Rush Limbaugh points out.
In practical terms, those parts of the economy that have real value based products and services will continue. But those parts that are based in economic leverage are doomed.
The old saying will again apply, that “You can only have credit if you don’t need it”, with 100% or *more* collateral, carefully assessed for value and even put in escrow, prior to your receiving credit based on all or some part of its value.
For most people this means they will only have debit, not credit. And those that have credit will have a limit based on cash they have on deposit with the credit issuer. So why have credit at all?
I suspect that with the international credit crisis, the US will fractionally redeem its international debt in exchange for food. That is, $10 bushels of produce for $10 cash, or $100, if they pay in relieved debt. And purchasers will have no choice, if they want to eat, yet have no cash, which most of them won’t.
This will also mean stiff trade tariffs. If some manufacturer wants to sell it here, they will have no choice but to make it here. Imports will be raw materials for food, exports for cash only or relieved debt.