Republican Debate a Big Government Stew with Small Government Seasoning

Tonight's Republican debate was a big government stew with small government seasoning. Ron Paul, who remains the only Republican candidate to raise the possibility of shrinking government, was the seasoning.   Stew-meat-and-potato candidates Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman talked  about the importance of the private sector and job creation, but they had nix to say about how to cut government. Gingrich said he favors less government; nevertheless, he offered ideas about how an ever-bigger government can spend on infrastructure. He, like rest of the beef, potatoes, and onions of the big-government Republican stew, had no specific plans to make government smaller; Gingrich and Romney merely say they like the private sector. Big government Progressives of the past like George W. Bush, George H. Bush, and Richard M. Nixon said the same kinds of things and did nix to shrink government. We can expect the same from tonight's stew meat.

Ron Paul may have been the small government seasoning,  but I found him not seasoning enough.  He made a number of good points, such as his mentioning that none of the other candidates had a any ideas on how to shrink government. But he erred in saying that the Fourth Amendment prohibits states from banning contraceptives. The decision that claimed this, Griswold v. Connecticut was the pivotal case of federal judicial imperialism that led to Roe v. Wade (the significance of this question escaped Mitt Romney, who seemed to not have heard of Griswold).

Paul's position is wrong if he claims to be the constitutionalist candidate. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In deciding Griswold, the Supreme Court claimed that there are penumbras to the Constitution. But that claim is a flat contradiction of the Tenth Amendment.  The Tenth Amendment precludes any concept of penumbras. It says that powers need to be delegated. The claim that delegation can be through non-delegation, i.e., through penumbras or shadows, is self-contradictory.    Hence, Paul advocates expansion of federal power.  This is understandable when considering that many libertarians apply a state minimization approach--if something reduces government then they are for it.  Griswold reduced government when defined as the sum of state and federal government, but it sledge hammered states' rights.  In the long run states' rights reduce government because the states can compete.  By instituting federal control, the federal government imposes ever more fascistic control.

Equally unconvincing is Paul's apparent claim that the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to require that states sell contraceptives because banning them would interfere with interstate commerce.  That would imply that the federal government has the power to require that the states do anything it wants, since anything can be imported across states.  A national building code, for instance, could be viewed as a matter of interstate commerce. In fact, that is precisely how the Democrats overturned judicial resistance to the National Labor Relations Act. 

Paul claims to favor the Constitution, and Griswold is very much in the anti-constitutionalist, "living constitution" tradition.  If the Fourth Amendment is extended to "penumbras" and then foisted on the states through another series of illegitimate decisions starting with Gitlow v. New York, then pretty much anything goes as far as reinterpreting states' rights and the Constitution out of existence.

Rather than Paul's government minimization approach, federal government minimization is closer to the Constitution. Take the First Amendment, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  This could not have meant that the states are forbidden from establishing a religion because all of them had established religions at the time the First Amendment was written. States have the right to establish a religion, although I don't favor their doing so.

My chief criticism of Paul, though, is that he should do more to state his case. The Republicans' debates are staged by media lackeys of the same special interests who gain most at public expense from the Federal Reserve Bank: Wall Street, big government, banks and big business.  As a result, the Republican debates are exercises in pointlessness. Paul was right to point this out, and thankfully  there is a Ron Paul to do so. At the point where he brought up monetary policy and the Fed there was a palpable freeze in the audience.  Discussion of the Fed and monetary policy are not permissible ingredients in big government stew.  For that reason,  Paul needs to do more to bring the debate about the Fed to the fore. No institution has been more destructive of the nation's welfare.  It takes guts to say things on national television that the debate planners don't want a candidate to mention. Paul is three quarters of the way there. But he needs to be more aggressive.The seasoning needs to be stronger.

Students React to My Senior Seminar Course

Hi there Prof Langbert;

          This is ______ from your intercession 2011 human resources class and fall 2011 business seminar class. I just completed my curriculum in Brooklyn College. I found out today when I checked my degree-progress in the school's website. I just wanted to thank you again. I had a wonderful time taking your class and thank you again for the good grade that you gave me. Brooklyn College was my second choice when I enrolled back to college but I'm glad that I ended up in Brooklyn College. I had a great experience at Brooklyn College. My experience there is something that I will remember for many years to come. Again, Thanks much, have a nice day, cheers!

Sincerely;

Good morning Professor,

I would like to thank you for being such a dedicated professional. Overall your class was my favorite at Brooklyn College. I'm looking forward to a long life of continued education, success, and most of all, happiness! Happy New Year to you and your family!

Dear Professor Langbert:

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with me. I enjoyed taking your class. Have a Merry Christmas and a wonderfully, Happy New Year.

Dear Professor Langbert,

Thanks for the advice. ( I believe I'm using advice correctly this time :-) ).  Thanks for the knowledge you've imparted to me during the semester.  The classes on success, goal seating and ethics were informative and enlightening.


Best wishes.  Happy Holidays!


Regards

By regular mail:

Professor Mitchell Langbert:

Thank you for the knowledge imparted to me during this semester.  It was enlightening and has given me confidence to succeed. The books we covered were enlightening and thought-provoking. I thoroughly enjoyed the books The Fountainhead, Ragged Dick, How to Win Friends and Influence People, and The Millionaire Next Door.

Once again, thank you.

My Letter to the Kingston Freeman Concerning Gary Weiss's Op Ed

The Kingston Freeman published my letter in response to Gary Weiss's Op Ed concerning Ron Paul:

Dear Editor:

Congressman Ron Paul disavows letters which he says he did not write (syndicated columnist Gary Weiss, The Street – Freeman website, Dec. 28, “Ron Paul captures the crackpot vote").

Contrast that Christmas-sized portion of hate doled to Paul to your handling of Barack Obama.

In 2008, there was no criticism of then-Sen. Obama’s associations with anti-Semites and felons, to include Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Pfleger. In contrast, Weiss convicts Paul without trial.

Paul is the only candidate to question both parties’ refusal to discuss the bipartisan commitment to the Federal Reserve Bank and its creation of income inequality by diverting wealth from the public to Wall Street.

As Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson of the Jerome Levy Institute reveal,  in the past few years the Fed has purchased $29 trillion in assets.  The assets were financed with dollars the Fed printed from thin air.

We have not felt the effects because central banks prop up the dollar.

To the extent that the toxic assets are less than the $29 trillion, there is a loss to the public, likely in the trillions.

The entire American GDP is about $14 trillion.

But that’s the least of it.

 

By tripling the money supply since 2008 (from $800 billion to nearly $3 trillion), the Fed and the two major parties have opened the door to the money center banks increasing the American money supply 30-fold.

The potential instability exceeds that of the 1930s.

So far, only Paul has raised these issues.

Maybe I can see Weiss’ point:

Why discuss the Fed when there are plentiful opportunities in the op-ed market to call Paul, R-Texas, and his supporters names, but few to discuss substantive issues? 

MITCHELL LANGBERT

West Shokan

mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

Tom Deweese Speaks in Santa Cruz

Tom Deweese speaks in Santa Cruz. I heard Tom speak in the Albany area about two months ago (H/t Chip Mellor). He's a great speaker.  Will America awaken to escalating totalitarianism?