As cash runs low in government coffers around the country, politicians are ratcheting up the intensity of their search for revenue and new areas to regulate. Small businesses are in their cross-hairs in a mammoth, nationwide shakedown. They are the nation’s critical engine for growth, innovation and job creation, yet they are being starved for credit and slammed with more taxes, government directives and litigation exposure. This spells weaker profits and fewer jobs, risking a fundamental deterioration in America’s private sector.
The federal government’s response to the crisis is to build up Washington’s small-business dependency apparatus. Of the $3.6 trillion in federal spending planned in 2010 (overruns likely), many crumbs will find their way to small businesses through government loan programs and complicated tax credits. Politicians are addicted to spending and can trumpet their ability to bring home the pork while ignoring the devastating net outflow from small businesses to Washington.
Washington’s expansion does nothing to create a robust small-business environment. Businesses with fewer than 250 employees provided most of the net job growth in the 2002–07 expansion yet are still in the starting blocks in the current recovery. The 2,300-page health care bill will take months and years to decode and will weigh heavily on small-business decisions. New regulations are mushrooming from the constant string of thick “stimulus” bills, the coming law on new financial regulations and the sure-to-be-bad tax bill toward year’s end.
A very informative article about the Socialist in the White House and what he is attempting to do. Don’t think for a minute that the new tax reporting rules on 1099-MISC forms and the new health care data base that will track all financial transactions are not going to be used to bludgeon small business and individual taxpayers to cough up more and more dollars to feed the public employee unions. And wait till the Bush tax cuts expire. A little known piece is the reset of estate taxes way back down to a level that will kill the ability of small businesses and family farms to exist beyond one generation.
The problem is not more taxes, it’s less spending by the political class of scum we unwittingly send to Washington.
For all you folks that hate “big business,” not to worry. Good old BP was one of the founders of the industry council to support cap and trade legislation. What is happening here is crony capitalism run by the state, where only the favored large companies that cough up campaign donations are allowed to exist and small business is squeezed out.
This country is beginning to look more and more like Venezuela every day.
And it is added and abetted by the Democratic Party. Will this assault on our Constitution never end?
#1. While I agree with much of what you say, I believe that it is not the government controlling big business – “crony capitalism” – but rather the other way around. It is big business (Wall Street, etc.) – “corporatism” – controlling government from the Fed through the President and using the government to rape and pillage the country. The socialism comes in with the government (run by big business) using socialism to buy the people and keep them under control.
#2. it will end when the people understand what is going on, get up off their duffs, vote the crooks out and then pass laws to protect the people from the big business predators which, if I remember correctly, is what the Constitution calls for the government to do.
It’s more than voting. We need a new Constitutional Convention with powerful safe guards to restore limited government.
You can’t have “crony capitalism run by the state” and “socialism” simultaneously.
We don’t need to be playing around with the Constitution in a new Constitutional Convention. It is perfectly adequate now and should only be changed by the amendment process already available in the Constitution.
No. It has failed. It is routinely ignored by all branches of government. The courts act as sitting constitutional conventions already. It is time for a new constitutional convention and the states should call one.
And the Constitution already provides for Constitutional Convention as a means of amendment.
What amendments do you want?
So, what specific changes would you write into the Constitution? It’s all very good to talk about “limited government,” but my experience is that most people define that as “eliminating any government program that doesn’t benefit me personally.” Voters seem just fine with expanding the role of government when it serves their own agendas. Specifically, “limiting the federal government” is often just a front for removing any effective controls on intrusive or oppressive programs by state and local governments, by big businesses, or by selfish majorities. So what specific limits would you place in the federal constitution that could not potentially result in an overall reduction in personal freedom, rather than an increase in liberty?
What amendments? How about these, for starters:
a) Except in time of declared war, the federal budget of these United States shall remain in balance at a level not to exceed seventeen percent (17%) of the previous three years’ average Gross Domestic product. An additional three percent may be collected for the specific purpose of retiring existing debt.
b) Each and every act of the Congress of these United States shall include a preamble detailing the precise section(s) of this Constitution by which it is authorized.
c) No United States Senator shall serve more than three consecutive terms, and no member of the House more than six.
d) The Seventeenth Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed. [direct election of Senators; chances of passing this are close to zero]
#7. The Constitution has not failed, it has been perverted. It’s true that all three branches of government ignore the Constitution, but there is also a Constitutional remedy for that in place – impeachment. Plus, the rulings of the court are opinions, not law. I believe that it was Jefferson when President who stated about a Chief Justice John Marshall ruling to the effect that Marshall had made the ruling so let him enforce it. Also, the House does not have to fund something just because the Supreme Court offers the opinion that it’s Constitutional. The Constitution has not failed. It just needs to be recognized as the supreme law of the land which it is by all three branches of government and followed.
#11. Excellent suggestions. That would make a great start.
To answer the headline question, it is because the Manifesto tells him so.
12, that was Andrew Jackson.
[blockquote]Article 5.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, [b]on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,[/b] which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress[/blockquote]
In addition to to 11,
Any Court decision operating to expand the powers of the Federal Government require approval by 2/3ds of the States and any decision that operates to amend the constitution through judicial interpretation be treated as an amendment to the Constitution requiring ratification by the states.
The court in interpreting the constitution are to construe it is such a way as to strictly confine the federal government to those powers granted it by the constitution to include the federal courts, that the federal government is strictly a creature of the constitution and does not have general police powers which are reserved to the states.
That the Congress may not delegate legislative powers to the executive pranch.
That Citizens have automatic standing to challenge any perceived federal violation of the Constitution, for example the citizenship of the President.
That the federal government may not commandeer the states to perform a federal function and that the federal government may not impose requirements on the states receiving federal funding that the federal government could not do directly, ie no strings attached to federal money.
The commerce clause repealed or strictly limited to regulating duties placed on commerce by the several states.
Treaties may not superceed the Constitution unless approved by 2-3ds of the States.
Repeal the income tax
A separate Constitutional Court be established with Justices to be appointed by the States to review actions by the federal government to include the federal courts, that the states believe to be outside the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
The states may take any action they deem necessary and appropriate to defend their borders with foreign countries in the event, in the view of the particular state, the federal government fails to perform its obligation under “Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, [b]and shall protect each of them against Invasion[/b]; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
I am sure I can think of some more.
Congress shall pass no law that applies to the general public that does not also apply to Congress. (That would probably solve more problems than we know or can imagine.)