This is an excellent, short writeup on how and why Medicare is a ponzi scheme.
This legislative session, the Minnesota GOP has had firm control of the legislature, and the DFL won the governorship. A conflict has been brewing over taxes and spending. The DFL wants more – of everything. The GOP wants to “live within our means”. The legislature passed appropriations bills for all state departments, and the governor vetoed all but one of them. As a result, the state of Minnesota loses its ability to spend money on June 30th.
The Minnesota constitution, in article XI, section 1 is clear:
No money shall be paid out of the treasury of this state except in pursuance of an appropriation by law.
However, on June 13th, the Minnesota attorney General, Lori Swanson, filed this, and added legal reasoning here.
Then, on June 15th, Governor Dayton filed this.
The governor’s filing is a puzzle. One the one hand, it warns of “corruption and tyrrany” if the court intervenes, and then later asks the court to intervene by appointing a mediator.
There is apparently no statutory support for these appeals to the court. They are based on the precedents set in 2001 and 2005, and even so are very weak. The shutdown in 2001 was arguably a constitutional issue because it involved the legislature shutting down other branches of the state government. It was in 2005 that the court took it upon itself the power to substitute its judgement for that of the legislature.
This year, the 2005 precedent is being exploited to fund roughly one third of the entire state budget. (by my rough calculation).
A question that should be asked is: if the courts can declare some spending “core” and not not subject to the constitution’s restrictions on appropriations, then who is to say that the court cannot simply declare that the legislature may not cut funding for XYZ program or department.
The shutdown threatens to cause damage and dislocation to the state, but a “favorable” ruling on the governor’s and AG’s petitions to the court will do far more damage. These court pleadings will undermine core concepts in our state constitution, which is far worse.
Call your legislator. Contact the Governor. If we are to protect and defend our constitution, and maintain a Rule of Law, we cannot allow our state officials to abdicate their responsibilities to execute their constitutional functions.
The court has no proper role in this budget battle. Governor Dayton and the legislators need to solve this problem on their own.
It is always a pleasure to talk about good news.
In New Jeersey, Gov. Chris Christie appears to have negotiated a deal with his legislature to bring some honest reform to a hopelessly underfunded New Jersey pension system. This is gutsy and sorely needed. One article about it here
In Washington, DC, both sides of the aisle, who may not agree on whether we should be in Libya, appear to be agreeing that the President should not have unlimited war-making powers, and are taking the first, tentative steps to do something about it. One of many good articles on this here.
Congratulations to the leaders in both places.
The USA has always been a vibrant and successful nation because it has been a place where an inventor in a garage can build something new, start a company, and become wealthy. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many others are all variations on this theme. Unlike many places in the world, it is not necessary to pay bribes or get government permission to start a business. Commerce is freely conducted, and the gains are yours to keep. This is the American Dream, and is the “brass ring” of our economy. It is a powerful force for good.
No longer.
Today, we have a different attitude toward the entrepreneur, and it is stifling the very innovation that has made us great. The innovator is now considered a threat.
For every one of these revolutionary entrepreneurs, an industry died. For Henry Ford, it was the industry that supported horses and carriages. For Bill Gates, it was mainframe computer companies. Every revolution has winners and losers. We no longer need buggy whips, whale oil or blocks of ice delivered to our houses. We don’t miss these things, and don’t want them back. Those who used to be in these obsolete industries have had to find new occupations. Such is life. Revolutions are messy and disruptive, but we are all better off in the end.
Enter the politician.
Politics by nature protects the status quo. Existing market participants hate revolutions. Their reflex is to appeal to politicians to stop the revolution. If the horse and buggy companies had been better organized and been able to, they would have shut down Henry Ford. Bet on it.
One of these revolutions in technology and commerce is under way. It is one of the many revolutions being made possible by “the internet”. This one could make our current techniques – cash and plastic cards – obsolete, and improve the convenience and efficiency of our lives. Everyone would win.
Click: Payments Innovation Strangled by Licensing
The mechanism of this revolution is the same as all other economic revolutions – the advantages of the new are so great that they out-compete existing vendors, attracting customers and driving the incumbents out of business.
That’s where the politicians come in.
Even before these entrepreneurs have gotten off the ground, the existing banks and payment processing businesses are appealing to the government to construct hurdles to discourage and stop their progress. One excuse for this is undoubtedly “national security”, but you can be sure that those pushing hardest to erect barriers to these revolutionaries are those big banks who are making their money on transaction fees.
Note that the solution is not to give even more power to the federal government to regulate payments nationally. The solution is to free the innovators of the nation from the tangle of red tape and regulation that has hobbled them in recent years.
There was a day when Henry Ford was the “most admired man in America”. Today, we don’t admire the successful. We tax them. We wag our fingers at them for not giving away enough of their money, and we pass laws to ensure that no one else can do what they did.
If we are to be successful, to compete in a world economy, and survive as a nation, we must change this attitude. The talented, driven, successful entrepreneur must be admired and supported again. These people are, after all, one of our rarest and most precious resources.
Mr. Obama, who made much of his “anti-war” positions in 2008, is now in violation of the War Powers Act. George Will describes the outrage here.
The fastest way to lose our republic is to allow our officials to ignore the law, or choose which laws they will obey.
Read the column. Take action. This must not stand.
A fable. Enjoy – click here.
According to this article, the Obama administration, probably in a fit of “transparency” is planning an executive order to require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions.
Is this required transparency, requiring the disclosure of corrupt influence in granting of contracts, or is it corruption, where the disclosure of the political donations will become a source of leverage on the contractors wanting federal business?
On principle, I agree with the RSC. This is an injection of politics directly into the contracting process, and begs for corruption. The RSC request should be heeded by the Obama administration.
Free speech regulated by government bureaucrats is not free speech. Political speech is the most critical type of free speech for a constitutional republic.
Stephen Colbert is one of the phalanx of those on the left who regularly condemn the recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.
Mr. Colbert tried to make a point, and got an education.
Read about it here: http://on.wsj.com/izlUHI