Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Shape of Things to Come?
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, October 19, 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, in an open letter to Sen. John McCain concerning why the pursuit of unnecessary AGW remedies will destroy America, included this very interesting paragraph:
Britain and the United States, like England and Scotland on the first page of Macaulay's splendid History of England, are bound to one another by "indissoluble bonds of interest and affection". Here in this little archipelago from which your Pilgrim Fathers sailed, we have a love-love relationship with what Walt Whitman called your "athletic democracy". You came to our aid - to the aid of the world - when Britain had stood alone against the mad menace of Hitler. Your fearless forces and ours fight shoulder to shoulder today on freedom's far frontiers. The shortest but most heartfelt of our daily prayers has just three words: "God bless America!" For these reasons - of emotion as much as of economics, of affection as much as of interest - it matters to us that the United States should thrive and prosper. We cannot endure to see her fail, not only because if she fails the world fails, but also because, as the philosopher George Santayana once said of the British Empire and might well now have said of our sole superpower, "the world never had sweeter masters." If the United States, by the ignorance and carelessness of her classe politique, mesmerized by the climate bugaboo, casts away the vigorous and yet benign economic hegemony that she has exercised almost since the Founding Fathers first breathed life into her enduring Constitution, it will not be a gentle, tolerant, all-embracing, radically-democratic nation that takes up the leadership of the world.
You should read all of Monckton's letter to McCain, as it does a very good job of pointing out the fallacies in the AGW crowd's arguments.

But I highlight the paragraph for another reason. Monckton is concerned that pursuing a "cure" for AGW would end up bankrupting America and reduce both its stature and influence in the world, thereby enabling an less well intentioned nation (or group of nations) to ascend to super-power status.

But there are other ways in which that can happen as well. One that has the possibility of accomplishing the same diminished status for the US is that of unfettered Democratic power in both the Congress and the Presidency.

Anyone who believes that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama represent mainstream America are simply deluding themselves. The three represent - again, in my opinion - a radical shift to the left for this country.

So what might this ruling triumvirate undertake when handed that sort of power?

Well, via the Wall Street Journal, here are a few things to consider:
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Look for SCHIP to pass immediately (Households of $80,000 and "children" of 23 included) and then look for a modified "Hillary-care" package to begin to work its way through Congress. Again, a reminder that the same people who managed to get us into this financial crisis are now going to try to "help" us by managing our health care.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
And that will be the death of incentive, innovation and the best health care in the world.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
It is going to be open war on "Big Oil", "Big Pharma", "Big Insurance" and "greedy" Wall Street. Look for a windfall profits tax to pass quickly and watch as prices at the pump go up while exploration goes down. Both, although they won't admit it, are exactly what much of the left passionately want to happen. Less fuel used and less oil pumped out of the ground while we waste billions pursuing the vapor-ware of "alternative energy".
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
This is one "Big" that won't be warred upon. Big Labor has labored (and spent) mightily to have the probable political situation we're discussing become a reality. That's because without a friendly federal government to pass legislation which forces into being situations which favor labor unions, they'd continue in decline. For all his nonsense about not taking "corporate lobbyist's money", Barack Obama is absolutely beholden to labor unions in this election. They have committed millions of dollars and millions of man hours toward his election, and they expect to be paid back. If you believe that special-interest democracy will die if Barack Obama is elected, you simply haven't been paying attention.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
Only the Kool-Aid drinkers and the economically ignorant (and those aren't mutually exclusive groups) believe that an Obama administration can A) cut taxes for 95% of America and B) add a trillion dollars in new spending and C) do it on the back of the "5%" rich.

It's nonsense on a stick. Look for corporate, capital gains, estate - any tax now existing that you can imagine, except, perhaps income taxes for those who pay no income taxes, to rise. If you can't tax the people directly, then tax them indirectly to get the funds needed to pay for your government run utopia.

And watch the results.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
Give it a couple of years, but this is also coming. This is what Monckton was addressing in his letter to McCain and it is well worth the read. But add this costly boondoggle on top of an already fragile economy and watch the result. If this is allowed to be imposed, it won't be a matter of "if", but "when" it all falls down.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress — Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
We've already seen the ham-handed attempts by ACORN at fraudulent voter registration in battle-ground states and how that can translate into fraudulent votes via absentee ballots. The integrity of the voting system has never been under a more concerted attack than it is right now. And I have to agree with the WSJ that a Democratic Congress and President would happily help those attacks along. Don't forget that when Obama and ACORN did work together it was on a law suit in favor of the "Motor Voter" bill.

And, while I'm not sure it will ever succeed, even with a Democratic majority, I do look for an attempt to reimpose the grossly misnamed Fairness Doctrine.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
The trial lawyers will feast, the eco-nuts will forage and the pork barrel will be full - but only for the favored special interests. All of that added to the possibilities above should send a cold shiver down your spine.

The WSJ notes that some of this might be tempered by the economic situation during the next couple of years. And indeed, it may. But that certainly wouldn't stop enabling legislation from being prepared and passed.

And then there's the Supreme Court.

Transformational election? The possibility certainly exists. But transformational in a way that would see the Founding Fathers again furtively meeting and planning revolution.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Speaking of the supreme court.

Article 3 of the constitution states Congress sets the number of judges to the Supreme court.

With a filibuster proof majority look for them to increase the size of the court by at least 4 if not more. It will be done in the name of diversity but I am willing to bet it will be done. That will mean no more hope of a balanced court for at least a generation if not more.






 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
As I’ve said on other occasions, when this tragic set of Democratic policies fails, the Republicans will get blamed! Moreover, blaming is likely to be successful inasmuch as the major media outlets are essentially the communication arms of the Democratic Party.

From time to time, a conservative disaffected with McCain has indicated that he/she will not vote. But, since conservatives will get blamed for Democratic policy failures anyway, NOT voting for McCain will bring no refuge.

This is my argument for voting for McCain. At least we can expect to get a few policy victories. If Obama prevails, we will get no policy victories...and all the blame to boot.

—-John Johnson
 
Written By: John Johnson
URL: http://
From time to time, a conservative disaffected with McCain has indicated that he/she will not vote. But, since conservatives will get blamed for Democratic policy failures anyway, NOT voting for McCain will bring no refuge.
I think you overestimate the attention span of the American Voter. The Obamanation can blame Bush for 2 years, tops.

With McCain, Republicans will get the blame for McCain’s 4 + the 2 years mentioned above.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Article 3 of the constitution states Congress sets the number of judges to the Supreme court.
No, it doesn’t. Here’s Article 3 in its entirety:
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


Section 2

Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;11—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.11

Clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.


Section 3

Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
There’s nothing in there about the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Steverino,

I think you’re splitting hairs, and retired military is basically correct: since the Congress established the courts including SCOTUS, it can decide how many justices there ought to be. This, IIRC, was the legal rationale behind FDR’s court packing scheme back during the Great Depression (i.e. the last time a f***ing democrat tried to use an economic crisis to socialize the United States).

Anyway...

The WSJ op-ed hits the nail on the head with this:
A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress — Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
The dems are NOT going to allow a repeat of ’94 when the American people revolted against the socialist policies of Slick Willie and The Evil One and put a GOP majority into Congress to act as a brake. As I’ve written many times since we started to learn the scope of ACORN’s nation-wide voting fraud campaign, the dems are working hard to ensure that we will be a one-party nation from now on. They’ve already got most of the MSM and academia on their side. With the Fairness Doctrine, the power of the DoJ and the IRS, and the brownshirt tactics we’ve seen The Annointed One use whenever somebody goes on the air to criticize him, look for the MSM to increasingly become MiniTru: anybody who won’t toe their line and spout their talking points will be run right out of business (and possibly into prison).

Once the dems control the media and the government, who will stop them - or even blow the whistle - as ACORN steals elections all the way down to the lowest local level?

Everybody, repeat after me:

"Obama is always right."

"I will work harder."
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://

The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President’s actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, rendering the President’s effort moot. In any case, Roosevelt’s long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court (second only to George Washington) and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice.[6]

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
the above was from the wikipedia article on the supreme court. Dont want to be like Joe biden and plaguerize.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider