And, in other news,

Quote:Free-Spending Steele Enrages RNC Donors

CHAIRMAN DOUBLES EXPENSES ON GOURMET FOOD, LIMOUSINES

(NEWSER) – Michael Steele has expensive tastes. The RNC chairman has doubled the committee’s spending on things like limousines, charter flights, and catering, and that’s got donors seething, Politico reports. In one recent incident, Steele hired Wolfgang Puck to cater a committee Christmas party at a trendy restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue; last year, the party was held in a conference room and catered by Chic-fil-A.

The RNC’s budget chairman defended the expenditures. “Nobody is living it up,” he said. “There are a number of upscale events, but those are all profitable.” But disclosure documents reveal that the $23 million surplus Steele inherited has shrunk to $8.4 million. January’s much-touted $10 million fundraising haul was almost all spent on the Christmas party and the committee’s Hawaii getaway. Big donors are fleeing, giving nearly half as much as they did in 2005. “Michael Steele is an imperial chairman,” one fundraiser complained. “He fancies himself a presidential candidate and wants all of the trappings and gets them by using other people’s money.”

Nice timing...

Reagan also raised taxes in a very subtle way. In the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the passive loss rules were enacted which meant that you couldn't invest in limited partnerships or real estate and get instant write-offs. He also raised capital gains rates. Rank and file Republicans believe in low taxes and limited government. Office holding Republicans believe in low taxes and keep the government that we have (which creates deficits). Democrats believe in higher taxes and even bigger government.

Government is designed to grow not shrink. Atleast the democrats are honest.

(02-23-2010 01:38 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Government is designed to grow not shrink. Atleast the democrats are honest.

Agree that at least the dems are honest about their intentions. Seeing that the republicans aren't has driven me away from them.

But when you want smaller government, the fact that one party is honest about its intentions to deny you what you want is small consolation.

I wouldn't say that government is designed to grow--at least not our constitutional model. But the people who populate government are mostly greedy for power, and that gives them an incentive to grow.

So I'd disagree only to say that it's the people in government--both political and civil service--who are to blame, not the government itself.

(02-23-2010 02:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't say that government is designed to grow--at least not our constitutional model. But the people who populate government are mostly greedy for power, and that gives them an incentive to grow.

The architects of our current government are not the ones that drafted the constitution. The current state of affairs owes a lot more to early 20th century progressives, New Dealers, and Great Society advocates. Add to that the greedy for power types (like George W Bush who said he would use up all of his political capital in his second term to advance his agenda).

(02-23-2010 02:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 01:38 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Government is designed to grow not shrink. Atleast the democrats are honest.

Agree that at least the dems are honest about their intentions. Seeing that the republicans aren't has driven me away from them.

But when you want smaller government, the fact that one party is honest about its intentions to deny you what you want is small consolation.

I wouldn't say that government is designed to grow--at least not our constitutional model. But the people who populate government are mostly greedy for power, and that gives them an incentive to grow.

So I'd disagree only to say that it's the people in government--both political and civil service--who are to blame, not the government itself.

I'd say it is the very foundation our governmental system is built upon that is to blame. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner.....The Constitution has either sanctioned or has been powerless to prevent the growth of government and its tyranny.....Being able to choose our masters every few years does not make us any less slaves to them.

The government is growing, one law at a time.

The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

(02-23-2010 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

...but they can't legislate from the bench, I.e. post opinions on issues without challenge. The executive and legislative branches could run roughshod on the American people and there's nothing we can do about it.....unless challenged in the Supreme Court. Why these issues haven't been challenged is beyond me. I can only think it has to do with money and power.

(02-23-2010 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

...but they can't legislate from the bench, I.e. post opinions on issues without challenge. The executive and legislative branches could run roughshod on the American people and there's nothing we can do about it.....unless challenged in the Supreme Court. Why these issues haven't been challenged is beyond me. I can only think it has to do with money and power.

They don't need to legislate from the bench. They need to interpret the constitution such that most of the legislation is unconstitutional. May be too late now though.

(02-23-2010 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

Thanks for the complement...but...unless I could be compensated for the job by voluntary contributions instead of theft...I would decline.

(02-23-2010 04:10 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The government is growing, one law at a time.

This

(02-23-2010 05:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

...but they can't legislate from the bench, I.e. post opinions on issues without challenge. The executive and legislative branches could run roughshod on the American people and there's nothing we can do about it.....unless challenged in the Supreme Court. Why these issues haven't been challenged is beyond me. I can only think it has to do with money and power.

They don't need to legislate from the bench. They need to interpret the constitution such that most of the legislation is unconstitutional. May be too late now though.

Part of the problem is the constitutional amendments. I don't know if you saw my post a while back on how the 17th amendment has led to exponential growth of the federal government, but that line of reasoning is that this amendment essentially marked the end of federalism and laid the groundwork for entitlement programs that never end. Prior to the direct election of US Senators, the senate was basically a chamber that represented the interests of state governments while the house represented the people directly. Thus, the Senate preserved federalism as long as it represented state governments.

It may have been Thomas DiLorenzo that made that argument (I don't remember who I heard it from).

(02-23-2010 06:45 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

...but they can't legislate from the bench, I.e. post opinions on issues without challenge. The executive and legislative branches could run roughshod on the American people and there's nothing we can do about it.....unless challenged in the Supreme Court. Why these issues haven't been challenged is beyond me. I can only think it has to do with money and power.

They don't need to legislate from the bench. They need to interpret the constitution such that most of the legislation is unconstitutional. May be too late now though.

Part of the problem is the constitutional amendments. I don't know if you saw my post a while back on how the 17th amendment has led to exponential growth of the federal government, but that line of reasoning is that this amendment essentially marked the end of federalism and laid the groundwork for entitlement programs that never end. Prior to the direct election of US Senators, the senate was basically a chamber that represented the interests of state governments while the house represented the people directly. Thus, the Senate preserved federalism as long as it represented state governments.

It may have been Thomas DiLorenzo that made that argument (I don't remember who I heard it from).

Id add the 16th to that list. Id also put "theft withholding" instituted by Truman as the nail in the coffin of those that oppose tyranny. At that point we no longer could simply STOP paying the thieves. I understand the populace thinking that it would be a simpler system..but...DAMN was it a BOOM for governmental growth. We will NEVER be able to stage any type theft revolt because of this.

(02-23-2010 06:45 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Part of the problem is the constitutional amendments. I don't know if you saw my post a while back on how the 17th amendment has led to exponential growth of the federal government, but that line of reasoning is that this amendment essentially marked the end of federalism and laid the groundwork for entitlement programs that never end. Prior to the direct election of US Senators, the senate was basically a chamber that represented the interests of state governments while the house represented the people directly. Thus, the Senate preserved federalism as long as it represented state governments.

It may have been Thomas DiLorenzo that made that argument (I don't remember who I heard it from).

I'd add to that the blatant and intentional disregard for the 10th amendment. That and the fact that the ratified version of the amendment was a watered down version of the original.

(02-23-2010 06:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The Supreme Court should be the gatekeeper. But they're appointed by presidents who obviously agree with their view on things, which in many cases includes adding legislation to control everything. More of those laws should have been determined unconstitutional. What you need is a Supreme Court with guys like Fo Shizzle that would say "What the heck are you thinking?" when they try to further expand Congress's powers.

Thanks for the complement...but...unless I could be compensated for the job by voluntary contributions instead of theft...I would decline.

I think way back when, you could have the kept the government way smaller. That would be worth the expense of a few salaries for some supreme court justices. Would have been a good investment.