Posted on 06/04/2012 2:01:29 AM PDT by OwenKellogg
Many laws protect us against abusive businesses. Some laws protect us against abusive unions.
But what laws effectively protect us against abusive government?
The Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the RICO statutes have been enacted due to alleged market abuses or attempts to control a market by big business, big labor or organized crime.
Antitrust laws are intended to protect us against business and unions. But the protections against intrusive government are fragmented at best.
The Supreme Court's recent decision against the EPA overreach helps, but what about the human toll on the citizen while the case is being decided? What if the citizen had lost the case? Imagine the emotional and financial toll on the person.
When the EPA lost, all that happened was that the EPA will now be forced to find another way to exercise regulatory power, and trust me, it shall.
This government abuse starts with the way our government is empowered and its monopoly protected.
The gerrymandering of the recent congressional redistricting, for example, has created an incentive by both parties to jointly create "safe" seats not susceptible to loss in an election.
With our current laws, government has the ability and incentive to restrain and limit competition in the political arena. The "monopoly," or perhaps, "restraint of government," as is seen in redistricting, complicated ballot access for candidates of third parties in many states, McCain-Feingold's alleged campaign-finance reform and the Federal Election Commission's burdensome reporting requirements make challenges to either party an exercise in futility.
Being "career politicians" has overridden the need to serve the very people who elected them.
I find big government to be a problem. The federal spending and overreach in areas that I perceive to be of a personal responsibility concern me.
By the same token, many of my liberal friends find big business to be a major concern to them. They have found the overreach by the big banks, Wall Street or other large enterprises to be troubling.
Friends who are business owners find big unions to be a problem. The United Auto Workers settlements in the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcies are well known to this group.
Friends who are workers at companies also expressed lament about overreach by either their unions, if in a union environment, or by their companies in a nonunion environment.
The only common denominator that I found in all of this common dissatisfaction is the word "big," or monopolistic power. The tea party is rallying against one form of excessive overreach. The Occupy movement is reacting to a different perception of overreach.
Perhaps big business, big government and big unions are the culprits.
As a consultant to financially troubled companies, I have done a great deal of work with Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers to the automotive companies, the Big Three. In these financial restructurings, I found that the market power exercised by the very large automobile manufacturers forced their suppliers to cut benefits and pay for even their union workers. The net result was the union members of the Big Three benefited at the expense of the union workers at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers.
In a similar vein, the airline industry, the steel industry and other similar industries have seen their power severely diminished. The lack of counterbalancing power in any business dealing creates the opportunity for market abuses and eventually market corrections to these abuses leading to an industry's decline.
Once the abuses become rampant either the marketplace or regulators step in to address the abuse, but this is only after significant damage and economic dislocation has occurred.
The time for a Government Antitrust Act is now. I propose a Government Antitrust Act would require elected officials in the executive branch, the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as political appointees, to be held to same standard of financial and ethical responsibility that they demand of leaders in business.
The Act would require:
•Redistricting based upon an independent commission elected from a proportional representation of independents and political parties, as well as judicial representation from the state's Supreme Court. •Eliminating campaign finance laws restricting contributions by individuals in the political process. •Prohibiting allocation of voter representation based solely upon the two "major" parties. •Requiring that candidates for public office meet the same standards as required of candidates of the "major" political parties to enforce open and fair ballot access. •And elimination of all pensions for elected officials of Congress, the Senate and the President and Vice President of the United States. Sanctions would also be imposed for improper actions while in office and would include:
•Failing to account for public funds and passing unfunded mandates. •Using public funds for any financial supporter to a candidate's campaign without a full ethics disclosure and review. •Failing to implement a system of internal controls over financial reporting of government entities (the Federal Government cannot produce a balance sheet). •Waste, fraud and abuse to include pork type projects without a cost-benefit analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. •The Government Antitrust Act ideally would require restitution by the government for overreach of their powers. The people are speaking, and we will be heard. The tea party movement and Occupy Wall Street are real. Our freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and seeking redress from government are meaningless if career politicians control the political process which protects those rights.
-------------------------------------
I think I can go along with some of these ideas:
"And elimination of all pensions for elected officials of Congress, the Senate and the President and Vice President of the United States."
The constitution is supposed to be our “government anti-trust act”.
Our Founders assumed the representatives in our government and the people would be one in the same. It was illogical for the people to send rogues to represent themselves, and doubly illogical for the people to not replace the reps once it was found out they were rogues.
>But what laws effectively protect us against abusive government?<
Congress is democratically elected. For practical purposes, most of the time, the man chosen President reflects majoritarism as well.
A corrupted people that sends enough Sheila Jackson-Lees to Congress and Husseins to the Presidency must expect Hugo Chavez government. We have only our collective selves to blame for abusive government. Until that changes, until the people reject corruption of our institutions, our slide into absolute despotism will continue.
Until that changes, until the people reject corruption of our institutions, our slide into absolute despotism will continue.
Well put.
The slide is just about to the bottom. What happened? Can we climb the ladder back to where the slide started?
I agree with Levin on this one. I doubt society will recover before it and our government collapses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.