Posted on 09/02/2014 6:44:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
As Americans celebrated Labor Day and the freedom to provide for their families, let’s hope they didn't spoil the holiday yesterday by pausing to consider whether government today is making their lives easier or more difficult.
To wit, the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, which ranks countries based on four main factors – rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency, open markets – has the US is headed in the wrong direction. “The U.S. is the only country,” the survey states, “to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years.”
As ordinary Americans toil to put food on the table and provide for their families, most “cling” to the idea that the highest aim of our leaders is to leave a legacy of greater freedom our children, not less. Americans don’t believe in a monarchy, and they actually believe everyone should live by the same set of rules, not one set of rules for them and another set for the political class when circumstances or political arguments fail.
Needless to say, many Americans are outraged to see laws being re-written midstream, whether in health care, taxes, immigration or in government grants to political cronies. They are discouraged to learn of the secret 2012 decision by the Treasury Department to confiscate the profits of the mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With that decision, the federal government thumbed its nose at transparency, flaunted the basic rule of law and property rights, and put the government deeper into the mortgage market. It moves our country in the opposite direction of where it should be headed.
Ordinary Americans understand that our system of freedom, bolstered by a strong foundation of contract enforcement, property rights and the rule of law works better than any other system in the world, but they also know those liberties cannot be taken for granted.
Working families, through their personal accounts, pension funds including those managed on behalf of public employees, and retirement plans hold sizable investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These large funds also often employ private professional money managers to make choices and take risks on their behalf, and through those managers ordinary Americans are invested in a broad swath of the economy, including Fannie and Freddie.
During the financial crisis, the US government, after years of policies that promoted their excesses, chose to move the mortgage packaging giants into conservatorship to manage the entities on behalf of its investors. In doing so, they agreed to a 10% dividend, a figure reminiscent of White House confidant Warren Buffett’s deal with Goldman Sachs when it was running into trouble in 2008.
That was the deal, and it sent signals to the market at that time, including to foreign investors. Some investors held on as they had for years, some sold, some came in with new capital. Treasury then secretly changed the rules and started taking 100%, leaving those who stuck with their investment, or committed new capital to the market , with nothing.
The Wall Street Journal/Heritage study confirms the slow erosion of freedoms, however imperceptible to the modern liberal eye. That erosion occurs bit-by-bit, with each instance of a grab for greater government power, crony capitalism, lack of transparency, and evidence of disdain for private property rights and rule of law.
Having celebrated Labor Day, Americans must go to the polls this November, and vote for political leaders who will advance liberty, limited government, the rule of law and job opportunities.
No that slowly, if you ask me.
Had the same thought. A slow drip has become a complete torrent.
” - - - “The U.S. is the only country,” the survey states, “to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years.” - - - “
This is due to Democrat control of the Administration and US Senate directly, and effective indirect Democrat control of the US House by manipulation of weak Speaker “Blank Check” Boehner.
Right, that's why a federal increase in the minimum wage is even popular with most (~ 50% or greater) Republicans.
...to ave the federal government set salaries.
“The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”
Outstanding tag line. I'm liberating it.
Only if We The People allow it.
Exactly
The United States Constitution is held by congress to be an antiquated and obsolete document of historical interest only.
Meanwhile, the American people are too busy sucking away at the public teat, watching TV, taking drugs, and screwing each other to pay any attention.
"We the People" are not only allowing it, we are electing republicans who enable the activists on the liberal left who have a democrat socialist agenda which states:
"Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" including -
I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
If you mention that to most republicans serving in congress they will say that when you take it in it's extreme sense it sounds bad. But, that's not really what our good friends across the aisle mean.
"Antiquated" and "obsolete"? Not so!! See the following essay, reprinted with permission here.
Checks And Balances
The Constitutional Structure For
Limited And Balanced
Government
The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams.
Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:
"If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).
Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolu te, and the government end in tyranny.
Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property.
"INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness." (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)
What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:
HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.
SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states' rights - another check the Founders provided.)
EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President's veto.
LEGISLATIVE has further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.
EXECUTIVE has further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.
JUDICIARY is check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with constitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.
LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.
EXECUTIVE (President) is check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.
LEGISLATIVE is check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.
LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is check on both EXECUTIVE and J U DICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.
The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitutional Amendments.
LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.
It is the PEOPLE who have final check on both LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.
It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government. "To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them," said George Washington.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
Very nice. Now tell it to congress and the White House.
Our out of control judiciary and administrative state are well beyond the reach of We The People.
In addition, freedom in our once republic are not supposed to depend on electoral outcomes. If they are, it means we have become a democracy; all democracies eventually slide into anarchy and tyranny.
“The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” -Dennis Prager
Yup, I looked it up. Thanks Mr. Prager for that gem of wisdom.
I think it is obvious that we have been sliding for some time and are dangerously close to the point of no return. The fact that we have a president who has hand picked members of his staff with strong Muslim Brotherhood ties and a Muslim value system of his own is something I find dangerously troubling.
The fact that no one in our government or military command sees it as a problem even after the POTUS has ignored over a year's worth of briefings on the ISIS build up is just plain scary.
Most of the country watches news of the beheading of American journalists in between Geico and Jack In the Box commercials with out a second thought. I'm feeling very helpless and insecure over this.
I confess to having some degree of difficulty in understanding how something that is long gone can be slipping away.
FR POSTED BY ZAKEET---A Texas catering business was following the law and was nailed by DOJ---forced to pay the United States govt $26,400 for engaging in “citizenship-discrimination,” as part of a settlement with the Justice Department.
Culinaire International unlawfully discriminated against employees based on their citizenship status, the Justice Department claimed, because it required non-citizen employees to provide extra proof of their right to work in the United States.
Culinaire has agreed to pay $20,460 in civil penalties, receive training in anti-discrimination rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act, revise its work eligibility verification process, and create a $40,000 back pay fund for “potential economic victims.”
The Justice Department claimed this violated a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibits employers from requiring extra documentation from non-citizen employees. (Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
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.
