Article

2010-02-11 Home Front: Politix

'Tenther' movement aims to put power back in states' hands

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-02-11 03:01|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 There is one other thing that should be done.

Originally the Senate was supposed to be the house of government that represented the states. The Senators were elected by the state legislatures. In the early 1900's this was changed to have the Senate elected by the people of the state in an "at large" election. The effect of this is that the cities basically elect the Senators and the rest of the state has no say.

I suggest a compromise:

Have ONE Senator elected by the people and one Senator elected by the legislature. The States created the federal government, they should have a check that balances its power.

Posted by crosspatch 2010-02-11 03:19|| 2010-02-11 03:19|| Front Page Top

#2 "So secession is not a constitutional option."

That's true as long as you can find enough people in the states not seceding to go and kill enough people in the the states desiring to secede to eliminate the desire. Slavery? Sure. Big Government? Not so much. Government dependents don't make great soldiers.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-11 04:55|| 2010-02-11 04:55|| Front Page Top

#3 At the turn of the Century, the 19th-20th, state legislatures were largely an extension of either business (trusts) or family clans. That is why the Constitution was altered to allow direct elections. It only took about seventy years for the corruption to achieve national level. State governments are cheaper to buy, so expect no relief by reverting back to the older system.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-02-11 06:46|| 2010-02-11 06:46|| Front Page Top

#4 #3 -- hear, hear. That answers the question I posed on a comment yesterday. Many if not most of the changes in US government introduced since the Constitution was first ratified were put there for good reasons (at least at the time they were made.)

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-02-11 07:17|| 2010-02-11 07:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Don't for a minute believe that there was any upstanding or noble cause in Woodrow Wilson's four "progressive" amendments to the constitution. All were short sighted, partisan efforts to curry favor with selected constituencies, and increase federal power and wealth.

The 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was sold at the very start as a "progressive" tax, to punish the wealthy, along with the pitch that it would remain a minor tax, and never be used to control the public.

The 17th Amendment was again a "progressive" effort to undermine resistance to progressivism with an appeal to populism. Today, the equivalent would be to push for the election of federal judges, as more "democratic".

The 18th Amendment, Prohibition, was done to curry favor with the strongest faction of the social control movement, who also backed a whole range of such programs, such as eugenic sterilization, abortion, and was deeply anti-Catholic immigrant.

Even the 19th Amendment, Women's Suffrage, was not passed strictly for greater democracy, but with the idea that women were more emotional, and would be inclined to strongly support the progressive agenda against the men in their family.

All four were cold, calculating, and ruthless attempts to get and keep power and new wealth for the progressives to spend.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-02-11 07:55|| 2010-02-11 07:55|| Front Page Top

#6 All four were cold, calculating, and ruthless attempts to get and keep power and new wealth for the progressives to spend. Lots of strawmen in your arguments. I don't buy them.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-02-11 08:35|| 2010-02-11 08:35|| Front Page Top

#7 While it's true that many state legislatures are corrupt and run by hacks (I would know, I live in Illinois), it's also true that senators selected by them would represent the state's interests since the senators would be beholden to those legislatures. One of the main points of the US Constitution is the distribution of powers. That system is out of whack with the federal government having too much power. The most intersting thing to me about the 10th is the beginning that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...". In other words the US is only allowed to do those things that the Constitution specifically says it can. This is the idea that has been usurped over the years.

Posted by Spot 2010-02-11 08:39|| 2010-02-11 08:39|| Front Page Top

#8 They may have been put there for good reasons, but that is what the road to Hell is paved with. Have they proven to be effective? No.

The original design was one with separation of powers and checks and balances. The three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial were designed to balance each other. There were also three levels of governance, the federal, state and family. Each had specific and exclusive duties and could act as a check on the other. By this decentralization and division of power no single political actor could become a tyrant. Like a three legged stool, all had to work together to accomplish the goal.

Then industrialization came and dislocated the country much as globalization is dislocating it now. The response was to address the symptoms, not the causes of the dislocation.

The XVI was designed to take money from the evil rich. Its pernicious effects continue to be felt every April 15 by the productive half of society.

The XVII invaded personal freedom so much that it has already been repealed. Though we still suffer under federal drug laws passed in 1914. That war on drugs sure is working out well, too.

And foolishness of the XVII is becoming more apparent all the time as states are left as supplicants to the Federal government instead of sovereign states.

All three of these were adopted for "good reasons" at the time. But in practice they have proven to be a cure worse than the disease.

The effect of all three was to gather power and control in the Federal government at the expense of the states at first and now the family. That has not redounded to the benefit or anyone except the now bloated and unaccountable bureaucracy.

Concentration and centralization of power was feared by the founders. They were right. When economic power was concentrated and centralized at the end of the 19th century, the response was not to break up that concentration but to concentrate and centralize government. And that lead to big labor. All this will lead to the evils the founders feared. We will find out if we have time to step back or if we have passed a point of no return very soon.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-11 08:56|| 2010-02-11 08:56|| Front Page Top

#9 While it's true that many state legislatures are corrupt and run by hacks (I would know, I live in Illinois).... Spot.

Of course Spot is aware, some may not be. In all fairness, Chicago and it's surrounding areas and the "machine" are not representative of the rest of Illinois, certainly not Southern Illinois. On a much, much smaller scale Atlanta is much the same.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-02-11 09:02|| 2010-02-11 09:02|| Front Page Top

#10 Chicago's corruption is remarkable for a big city primarily by its transparency.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-11 09:03|| 2010-02-11 09:03|| Front Page Top

#11 Cook County corruption has long been an accepted reality. It's been institutionalized, something akin to Baksheesh in the ME or the slot machines of Vegas. It has been a way of doing business for so long hardly anyone within the county even questions it.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-02-11 09:10|| 2010-02-11 09:10|| Front Page Top

#12 In other words the US is only allowed to do those things that the Constitution specifically says it can. This is the idea that has been usurped over the years.

And for that, just look at a Judiciary that sits for life and is 'defacto' unaccountable to the people. It has accumulated powers which the founding fathers would have regarded as no less than 'royal'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-02-11 09:36|| 2010-02-11 09:36|| Front Page Top

#13 While it's true that many state legislatures are corrupt and run by hacks (I would know, I live in Illinois), it's also true that senators selected by them would represent the state's interests since the senators would be beholden to those legislatures.

They were beholding to who put them in power, not to the 'state' itself. Depending on who nominated or who ratified the appointment, the Senator represented their interests, not that of the citizens of the state. If they were 'bought', he was just as bought.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-02-11 09:53|| 2010-02-11 09:53|| Front Page Top

#14 Term limits at all levels of government, including judges. Corruption is a gradual process. Get rid of them before they turn.

Posted by ed 2010-02-11 10:04|| 2010-02-11 10:04|| Front Page Top

#15 And for that, just look at a Judiciary that sits for life

Not really. Look to FDR

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-11 10:45|| 2010-02-11 10:45|| Front Page Top

#16 Much of the Tea Party movement is a reaction to an out-of-control central government and one which has consolidated and concentrated more and more control over the people. At the same time it is based on the common perception that the country is not going in the right direction.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-02-11 11:15|| 2010-02-11 11:15|| Front Page Top

#17 Even with all the amendments sited, if you took a snap shot of America in 1940, thing were pretty much as they were before in relationship of powers. Even with Roosevelt's programs and powers, the impact upon America and the economy was ineffectual and cosmetic. What made the major change was the war that was brought upon America. When you look at 1950 you can see the sustained flow of power moving to Washington [pre-Beltway]. Even upon the end of the war, the traditional attitude was still there to return to the antebellum status. However, by 1948 and the 'Berlin Crisis' choices would be implemented that would ultimately distort the Constitution and its original intent.

What the war demonstrated is that, as found in the fascist and communist systems, centralized management could be made to work as the war economy was indeed micro-managed from Washington. What was not understood was that it could kick start an economy nearly purely focused on one national goal but it could not sustain an overall economy over an extended period of time. The idea that things could be accomplished if only we had more centralized power started to take real hold in the political class because the 'war' worked. They were aided by the far less than virtuous behavior of state governments that had engaged in obstructing the intents of the 14th and 15th amendments demonstrating that in the absence of a higher power the basic rights of citizens were in jeopardy. This reinforced the notion that only the national government could 'solve' problems.

With the implementation of the first peacetime draft, Washington entered into extended international commitments that required powers expanded and permanently assumed by the Executive. Up until this time the system permitted a degree of fudging of powers and authorities when in extreme circumstances that accommodated for the short period of war. Just research some of the actions of the Lincoln administration during the Civil War as an example. However, the fundamental to intent of the writers was that this was something temporary. They being well read in the classics and a couple generations removed from the actions and consequences of the English Civil War and Cromwell's Commonwealth, did not want a large standing army. It was viewed at the time that such things permitted Kings to wage wars, foreign adventures, at the determent of the common class. However, we went into a permanent state of war, on the cheap as possible, but none the less some state of engagement or preparation. The Second World War and its resultant entangling alliances distorted the intent of the limitation of powers both between the branches of the national government with a permanent wartime Command in Chief and also between the central government and the states because centralization of powers did not diminish after the fact.

Still, by even 1960 the power in Washington, though growing, had not achieved the gravitational standing to suck in the amount of power we've witnessed. It wasn't the income tax that did us in. Rather it was the slush fund that Social Security evolved to. That is what was raided in the mid-60s to fund the Great Society programs. Actually, more like the Great Political Bribes program. It was the courts that legitimized the federal program, outside the 10th amendment. It was that source that Washington politicians finally found the means to buy their offices for life with bread and games. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then the social security fund became the opiate of the political class to engage in redistribution, not of retirement pensions, by 'borrowing' against to fund their reelection gambits, high and low. Now you have the actual fusing of both the way [the powers] and the means [the money] to expand the national government. The rest is human nature.

Both these factors basically undermined any balance among the antebellum powers be they the branches of the federal government or between the states and central government. You think you can put the genie back into the bottle short of the consequences of every other human experience attempting it? /rant off

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-02-11 11:40|| 2010-02-11 11:40|| Front Page Top

#18 Procopius2k

Where do we go from here?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-02-11 11:45|| 2010-02-11 11:45|| Front Page Top

#19 In 1910 the population of the US was 45.6 urban and 54.4 rural. What has happened is that it has changed dramatically.

In 1990 we were 75.2 urban and 24.8 rural.

What this means is that the urban centers control the population. Whoever wins Chicago wins Illinois. Whoever wins Philadelphia and Pittsburgh wins Pennsylvania. Whoever wins NYC carries New York.

This means that the rural areas of the state are disenfranchised.

This change to popular voting of the Senate combined with "winner take all" electoral votes in states means that whichever party controls the two largest cities in a state generally takes the entire state. Electoral votes should be divided by House district with two votes going to whomever wins the state overall.

One Senate seat should be selected by the state legislature to ensure that the state government has some say as a check on federal power.

Posted by crosspatch 2010-02-11 13:33|| 2010-02-11 13:33|| Front Page Top

#20 It wasn't the income tax that did us in. Rather it was the slush fund that Social Security evolved to. That is what was raided in the mid-60s to fund the Great Society programs.

If we look at Net Asset Increases in the old age and survivors fund by decade as a percent of total federal expenditures by decade we get the following:

Decade % Fed Spend OASDI Assets
($billions)
1940-49 1.89%.......$534......10
1950-59 1.13%.......$734.......8
1960-69 0.76%.....$1,311......10
1970-79 -0.17%.....$3,228......-5
1980-89 1.48%.....$8.824.....130
1990-99 4.33%....$14,863.....644
2000-08 5.74%....$24,474...1,404

Certainly less was put aside each decade until the massive increase in payroll taxes in 1884. But it wasn't enough to even make a dent in in the increase in Federal spending in the 1960's or '70's and wasn't a slush fund in any sense of the term. If anythiing, I'd say the spending of the last 20 years has been underwritten by exorbitant payroll taxes. Unless you think that money is sitting in a lock box some where in an account with your name on it.

Even with all the amendments sited, if you took a snap shot of America in 1940, thing were pretty much as they were before in relationship of powers.

Ignoring the Wagner Act, the Social Security Act, the Securites Exchange Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, TVA, FHA, Fannie Mae, AFDC, the court packing plan and leaving the Gold Standard, I'd agree. But those acts did fundamentally change the relationship of the individual to the Federal government dramatically and irrevocably.

Power did start to flow out of government after WWII with the Taft Hartley Act, for example. But that was all put on ice by the invasion of Korea. And then the "greatest generation", reared to revere Roosevelt and obey the authorities in Washington, took over and gave us the disasters of the 60's and 70's. At least Reagan had an inkling of what life had been like before the depression and stopped the growth of the rot, even if he could not reverse it.Since then, we've been treading water, until last January.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-11 14:30|| 2010-02-11 14:30|| Front Page Top

#21 It's largely creative/hollywood bookkeeping. Before, then, and even today, raising taxes is still the third rail in politics. Observe Obama and the Democrats dance about increasing taxes now after lying, of course, that the middle class wouldn't be hit. Up till the sixties the SS monies were accounted for and were treated as reserves since there were many more payers in rather than payees out. To get their hands on more money without having to increase the obvious income tax, the Legislative and Executive branch began treating all income basically the same in accounting allowing access on the books to the SS monies. Suddenly, their ability to fund more government programs increased.

From Wiki -

Amendments of the 1960s
...

Medicare was added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-02-11 16:00|| 2010-02-11 16:00|| Front Page Top

#22 It is Hollywood accounting, indeed, but beware Wikipedia, particularly political articles.

Up till the sixties the SS monies were accounted for and were treated as reserves since there were many more payers in rather than payees out.

So what? This is the Hollywood accounting. They were treated as "reserves". And? The Social Security Admin took the surplus generated, when one was generated, and bought non-marketable Treasury securities, thus giving the money to the Treasury to cover deficits.

The problem was, and here I'll admit to trusting my 45 year old memories because I haven't been able to find good links, that for 6 of the 9 years ending in 1965 Social Security had run a deficit. That's right, from 1957 to 1965 Social Security paid out 4 billion dollars more than it collected! But it wasn't part of the budget deficit because it was "reserves" in the lockbox.

Republicans, now out of power, were furious because this allowed Democrats, now in control with a majority only equalled in the election of 2008, to appear to run a lower deficit than they actually were. So as part of the deal to raise Social Security taxes and introduce Medicare, a program progressives and new dealers had striven for long before the Depression, Social Security was incorporated into the budget.

To get their hands on more money without having to increase the obvious income tax

Of course, with the Social Security and Medicare tax increases, it may appear as if there was a diversion of funds to pay for Great Society programs. But the new taxes went into the Treasury just as they would have if the old reserve method of accounting had been used. But now, because of the tax increases, it appeared that the budget deficit was lower than it would have been had reserve accounting been retained. No wonder the Democrats let the Republicans have their way

In addition there was a 10% surcharge added to income tax payments from 1966 to pay for the War in Viet Nam in addition to the SS&MC increases. So fiscal policy was far more responsible than it has been for the last 9 years.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-11 17:06|| 2010-02-11 17:06|| Front Page Top

#23 Personally, I think the Representation in the House of Representatives should be based on the number of people who actually vote.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-02-11 18:53|| 2010-02-11 18:53|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm in Mexifornia. Heaven help us if this state ever gets the degree of sovereignty these "tenther" loons demand.

Posted by lex 2010-02-11 19:07|| 2010-02-11 19:07|| Front Page Top

#25 P2K - where do we go from here?

You seem to have a grasp of the situation; what's your recommendation? I say that with respect, BTW.

Posted by Bobby 2010-02-11 20:18|| 2010-02-11 20:18|| Front Page Top

#26 With all respect to the question, God in his grace has not seen fit to grant me the wisdom on what we can do to avoid the historical parallels. We are about to see if there still is an American Exceptionalism.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-02-11 22:30|| 2010-02-11 22:30|| Front Page Top

#27 Here's a thought. How about repealing the 16th Amendment? Dry up federal sources of funds. Whoever has the cash is the one in power.

Posted by Iblis 2010-02-11 22:37|| 2010-02-11 22:37|| Front Page Top

23:48 Skidmark
23:44 Skidmark
23:40 Skidmark
23:39 tu3031
23:38 Skidmark
23:38 darrylq
23:34 3dc
23:33 Skidmark
23:29 gorb
23:26 gorb
23:25 tipper
23:19 Skidmark
23:17 Skidmark
23:16 texhooey
23:16 crosspatch
23:14 Frank Drebbin
23:13 crosspatch
23:00 Grunter
22:57 gorb
22:57 Frank G
22:51 IG-88
22:50 SteveS
22:50 trailing wife
22:47 tu3031