Mosques, Churches and the Proper Role of Government

The question of the construction of a mosque within a few blocks of the site of Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, those destroyed by terrorists on September 11th 2001, has raised a good deal of noise and generated a good deal of debate. The issue has been presented as one of Freedom of Religion and tolerance on the one hand versus sensitivity to perceptions and feelings of the majority on the other. President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have both weighed in on the side of those who wish to build the mosque, suggesting that it is un-American to inveigh against them or any group because of their religion.

No one is arguing that Muslim’s don’t have the right to build a mosque. And in fact there are already quite a few mosques in New York City and on Manhattan itself. The argument is simply one of propriety. And who gets to define propriety when it comes to city zoning? The answer, of course is - depending on the city involved - the zoning board or the city council or some such group.

Herein lies the only issue that really needs to be addressed. Members of zoning boards are not supposed to be visionaries, instituting dramatic and sweeping changes in their city or town. Rather, they are supposed to represent the stated interests of the people, balancing the concerns of the citizens as a whole with those of the individual property owner and the developer. Thus, without any issue of free speech or any other freedom, a city is perfectly within its authority to say no to a church or a business going into one block of the city but allowing it to go into the next block over. Can this be contested in court? Of course. (In fact, in this day and age everything and anything seemingly can be contested in court, but that is the subject of another discussion.) Nevertheless, zoning of a town or a city is something that is a function of the sense of what is proper and where it is proper, based on the opinions of the people of the town or city.

All well and good. But, in as much as elections are not held every year, but more likely every two years (or more), how does the zoning board reflect the concerns of the citizens? Well, if they are being responsible, they should note the when there is public displays of concerns and when an issue energizes a large number of people they should either delay the decision until there can be some sort of referendum, or they should, assuming money is available, conduct some polling and hold hearings.

The point is that we live in a country that is based on participatory government. The people of New York are, according to a wide range of polling, quite upset about a decision of the planning commission (and whoever else is involved – I don’t know the official name of the committee and don’t really care). Others may be upset, for whatever reason, but it is New Yorkers who are the only ones who get to actually play in this particular game. The city counsel and the planning commission and whoever else is involved should be listening to their bosses – their real bosses – the citizens of New York City at least long enough to have some public debate. What we don’t need is this or that commission acting with no regard to public opinion in the face of some very real and pent up emotions. If the members of the councils and commissions feel that their argument is sound, then stand up in open debate and present it. But to ignore, or worse, attack as un-American, the concerns of 70% of the population and then to dismiss it out of hand, is nothing more than a local brand of tyranny. We are a democracy not an oligarchy.

Our National Crisis

Our nation faces a crisis. In the simplest terms, we are becoming like everyone else. The United States has always been different from the rest of the nations of the world because we were a nation founded on, and centered on, a series of ideals. What set us apart were a set of ideas and beliefs about the individual and society that made us quite unique and made us treasure our shedding of the past and the adoption of a new mantle, a new title, that of American. We reveled in not what we were, but what we were to become, not in what made us the same as our ancestors, but what made us different from the rest of the world, and similar to our new neighbors. We believed in government of the people, by the people, for the people. We believed in unalienable rights, we believed in One out of Many.

But today, increasingly, we find that this sense of the exceptional, the unique nature of America is being marginalized. It is to be expected that others would do so – when one is jealous of another they tend to belittle that which they cannot have. But today we find many of our “leading” citizens finding nothing exceptional about our nation. Instead of celebrating that which makes us unique and one, they celebrate our differences. Instead of looking forward to a future as Americans, they ask us to celebrate our pasts and to revel in our diversity, and look forward to a future in ‘a global community.’

Is it their fault? In a sense. But it is also everyone’s fault. Over the past 40 years our education system has spent less and less time teaching about the greatness and the uniqueness of our nation and more about the nation as simply another nation, stressing our errors not our successes. We risk losing a grasp of what makes us unique and with that loss we risk the very essence of this nation. America stands on the brink of becoming simply another old and tired nation, one in which the people - our citizens  - are simply those who were born here. This is truly a national crisis.

Is there a means at hand to reunite the nation, to give a rebirth to the notions that powered us through the last 234 years? I believe there it. It is encapsulated in the simple notion of service, of putting nation before self, of understanding that for this nation to succeed, with its demanding vision of participatory government and participatory society, that each of us is required to give. Sacrifice is necessary from each, but sacrifice for a greater good. This is the difference between simple self interest, which produces greed and short-term success, and enlightened self-interest, which in the long run produces both greater freedom and greater abundance. The nation faces a true emergency. And emergencies call for drastic action.

The Draft

Taken in isolation, a draft (or conscription), compulsory service in the military, is not a good idea. The concept that the government can – on a whim, that is, without cause – force you to serve in the military is contrary to the premise of individual liberty that is central to the very nature of this country.

That position having been established, is there a circumstance, a cause, under which it would be acceptable for the government to establish a draft? Governments by their nature have as the prime goal the survival of the state. This has been recognized and accepted since the earliest writings on political philosophy, the understanding being that within the concept of the social contract the notion of providing security, the prime driver for the creation of that contract, the survival of the state created by that contract is essentially equal to the notion of providing security to the individuals who create the social contract. Ergo, survival of the state (the nation) does constitute an emergency that warrants consideration of actions that we might otherwise consider beyond the pale.

Certainly, this was the very point made by President Lincoln. From his perspective virtually any action was justified if it kept the Union together. Everything else had to be subordinated to that one position. Emergencies demanded strong action, and national survival justified exceptional action.

The Crisis We Face

Today the United States faces a wide range of issues: on the economic front a large and growing debt; unfunded annuities that dwarf the nominal debt; financial crises and job migration; and rising energy costs. On the social front we face an immigration crisis and an increasingly compartmented and stratified culture; and from abroad (and in some cases from within our own society) we face Islamic terrorism; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and the rise of a host of potential adversaries.

Further, there is the crisis of identity that we identified at the top of this article. Arguably, it is our greatest threat. And it comes on top of all the other threats that we face.

Separately, each of these problems might be met and successfully addressed. Each would require a sustained effort. But collectively, they will require not simply concerted effort, they require a multi-generational commitment to an effort centered on the very idea of our nation as a whole, to a concept of this nation that expands well beyond the specifics of this or that issue. No one will try to reduce and then eliminate national debt simply because it is debt, nor will they seek a solution to the problem facing Social Security in the latter half of the 21st century simply because the numbers say it is necessary.

There must be a unifying force, a concept and vision which ties one idea to the other, and more importantly, ties one person to another.

An Exceptional Nation

This nation was born from a number of ideals, and in that sense – and it is a vitally important sense – it is truly exceptional. Most countries in history were (and are) the result of geography and conquest. Allegiance to the nation was based on the fact that you were born there and nothing more. The United States chose a different path, one encapsulated in several key documents, such as the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness…” and the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The notion of equality and unity is even more explicitly captured in the nation’s motto: “E Pluribus Unum” – One Out of Many. This speaks directly to an idea, a vision that has not simply been pooh-poohed of late, but actually pushed aside, the idea of the United States as the Melting Pot, a place where all could come, irrespective of their nation of birth, or their ancestry, and they would no longer be Irish or English, German or Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Indian, Persian, Arab, Berber, Kenyan, Congolese, Rwandan, Samoan or Philippine; they would be Americans. And they would all be equal, equal under the law and equal with respect to their opportunity to live free and to seek their success and to provide for their families. They would, in the words of a great American, be “judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

But we are now on the verge of losing that sense of unity, of losing the United in the United States. We are told to celebrate not what makes us alike, but what makes us different, and we now seem to have forgotten that it is not what makes us different, but what makes us alike that brings us together, that provides our unity, that provides the strength we need to face the challenges ahead.

This crisis, this national emergency will require a girding of our loins for at least one and probably several generations. To fail to address that emergency is to risk the nation itself. If we are to meet this emergency it will require all of us working together, as one team. But we are told we are not one team. Nor is there any mechanism in our current social order that promises to act as the driving force to build that team. We as a nation need some mechanism that will give to each of us a common foundation, a common touchstone that we can draw from to rebuild that unity, to rebuild that sense that we are part of a great undertaking, that our participation, our sense of ‘ownership,’ as part of a great team, is essential to our sustained growth. Without that common sense of belonging to something greater, without that sense that we are on the same team, working not for the greater good – not waiting for a handout – our national crisis will only deepen.

The Professional Lament

It is with this national emergency looming in front of us that the notion of restarting the draft is recommended. There are both philosophic and practical reasons for opposing a draft. Among them, the one mentioned at the top of this paper: that this is granting the government authority over the entire populace. Further, many in the military will laud the value of an all-volunteer force, citing in particular the greater professionalism and higher retention. But, both of these traits are purchased at great real cost in pay and particularly in greater dependent, retirement and medical benefits. Such arguments also eschew any discussion of the political reality that a volunteer-professional military force increases the separation between the citizenry and their military and encourages the political elite to use that force without substantial regard as to the concerns and desires of we the people.

Of course, no one could support a return to a draft if it would directly and immediately threaten the security of our nation. But such is not the case. The idea that the draft will give you less qualified personnel is, obviously, false. If the services were able to draw from high-school graduates and college students across the nation, particularly in a case where there are more than 1.5 million male high-school graduates and 600,000 male college graduates every year, there are certainly ample numbers to meet the yearly requirements for several hundred thousand needed each year. (This number would grow somewhat because the manning models for the services would change, but the numbers are well within the available manpower.)

Service lore (almost a military urban myth) suggests that it is nearly impossible to achieve and then maintain the level of training necessary to support today’s high-tech military, that the level of training needed to develop both today’s combat personnel and today’s combat support personnel far exceeds what can be obtained when faced with draft personnel who will only be in the service for two years, hence would spend nearly their entire enlistment in training.

In fact, a return to the draft would require a change in training models. But concerns about this or that personnel manning and training model are insignificant if the draft were able to provide a unifying force to our citizenry as a whole.

If there were a draft the services would be free to use a different set of standards: personnel in their first two years of service would be paid substantially less, the services could bar anyone from joining the services with dependents in tow, personnel in the first two years of service would not need money to live off base, there would be more personnel available for basic services such as cleaning up around bases. In short, the transition could be made to a different and less expensive model. Additionally, as we have a smaller military then when we last had a draft, the services could be much more selective and still meet yearly quotas. That it would offer its own leadership challenges is accepted. But again, that has been dealt with before, quite successfully.

The Essential Point

But the reason for a draft now outweighs any objections to the cost of transitioning from one personnel and training system to another. Our nation is faced with a true national emergency. In many respects our public schools have failed to educate our citizens as to what makes us unique among the nations of the world, and therefore what unites us, makes us one and apart from the rest. We hear politicians speak too glibly of ‘the world’ and less easily about the exceptional nature of America. Such was not always the case. And since the days of the Civil War we have lived in a society where every family had a member who had sacrificed for the nation, and in doing so had learned something about what made us a nation, and came away understanding at the visceral level that we were ‘one out of many.’

Most will accept that only in the event of national emergency is a draft justifiable. But, we are now in a national emergency, politically, economically and spiritually. And while the draft is not and cannot be considered a panacea to address this emergency, it is a vital and necessary element of the solution.

The draft would be this: the simple requirement that all males, between the ages of 18 and 26, be subject to a draft, and that perhaps 500,000 to one million per year (depending on the personnel manning model) be inducted into the military for a two year tour of active duty, followed by 4 years on inactive reserve status.

The implications to our society would be massive. Not only would the American people directly reconnect with their military, within a few years it would mean more members of Congress and members of Congressional staff with military experience, and hence improved judgment in all questions concerning our national security, from budgets and personnel to procurement and support to overseas operations.

What it would provide, apart from the specific military capabilities, is this: a leavening of our society. Every year one million men would – in common – take an oath to defend the Constitution and the nation; one million men would experience – in common – working for a cause greater than themselves; they would understand the real nature of heroism – sacrifice to that higher cause; every year one million men would be released from the service having lived together, served together, sacrificed together – under our flag, in support of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; each year another million men would, despite whether they were rich or poor, of Armenian, Dutch, English, German, Indian, Irish, Japanese, Somali, Vietnamese, or Zimbabwean descent, would look at each other and know that they had these things in common, that despite external appearances that made them look different that they had supported the same things, believed in the same things, sacrificed for the same things, slept in the same barracks, used the same latrines, ate (and hated) the same foods; and defended the same nation, defended the same people, defended the same beliefs.

Marriage and Tyrants

One individual has recently ruled that 58% of Californians don’t have the authority to change their state Constitution. Three issues are at stake here.

The first, and arguably the greatest, is the question of what is a right? Rights are fundamental principles that reside with the people. They exist outside of and above government. That is, no government ‘gives’ me a right, or even, in the strictest sense, guarantees a right, the right exists no matter what the government wishes. The people can, however, direct the government expand time and effort in protecting and defending rights.

As a general rule, the history of all governments is one of the organs of government, the bureaucracies and those in power, trying to continually limit the rights of the citizenry. Constitutions exist in order to limit government and hence control those efforts. But the important point here is that rights are not ‘provided’ by government, they exist apart from the government itself.

The second issue is whether the people of a state – Californians in this case – have the right to amend their Constitution so as to define an issue that is not otherwise defined. Note that Californians were not trying to usurp a specifically federally defined or protected right (though other states have). Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any effort to define marriage.

There is, however, an amendment that would seem to apply to such a case – the 10th, which states quite simply that “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.” Since declaring a couple as married is a power of the state (we’ve all heard the words from a priest, minister, rabbi or justice of the peace that includes, somewhere, words to the effect ‘in accordance with the powers granted by the state of XXX’), defining a marriage is a power residing at the state level. At least according to the several billion marriages that have taken place in the US since 1776.

This is not, of course, what the judge said. Rather, he referenced the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is worth looking at the original wording of that clause: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But for that to apply he would have to be referring to a right. But marriage is not a right. Marriage is a contract. With all contracts there come limitations, limitations that have as their basis understandings from common law, which is from society. And so, an adult cannot make a contract with a minor, except through a legal guardian. No contract is valid if it entails breaking the law, and so forth. I don’t know if anyone still pays attention, but the purpose of blood tests before marriage was to test for certain diseases. States would fail to grant a marriage license if one of the two people applying were carrying certain diseases. Marriage therefore is not a right in the strict sense. Rather, it was something that had been defined by society through the course of time.

As to equal protection under the law, the 14th Amendment refers to any person. In as much as marriage is about two persons in a contractual relationship this also doesn’t seem to apply. The judge may claim great legal experience, but the Constitution was drafted to be read and understood by We the People. The words are clear. From where exactly the judge derives his understanding isn’t clear.

This leads to a third and final point: marriage is not a right; marriage is a relationship established and defined by societies from the beginning of time. There is no issue of rights that can exist within such a situation; it – marriage – is simply what the society has defined it to be. If enough people wanted it, marriage could be defined to include owning a dog; no dog, no marriage. Of course, marriage has traditionally been defined by society as the foundation upon which is built the basic unit of that society: the family. But it is a definition that was provided by the society over an extended period of time.

Now, we have one man who has decided that society does not have the right to provide its own definitions. Instead, he has chosen to read into this something that simply isn’t there in order to justify his usurping the people’s power. Whatever your belief about gay marriage, the greater issue here is that one man has gone out of his way to thumb his nose at the notion of democracy and the Constitution, to declare a de facto tyranny of the court. Maybe it’s time we have a few referendums on the judges themselves.

Washington, Tel Aviv, Tehran and Machiavelli

Machiavelli is famous, or perhaps infamous in some circles, for presenting us with the hard and unvarnished truth of the nature of power. While the complete breadth of his writings shows him to be much less cynical than many who have read and commented on him, nevertheless, he was perhaps the first realist in the field of political philosophy, stressing that the actions of the state and the use of its assets, particularly its military, should ultimately be predicated on prudence, not idealism, lest the actions of the government bring ruin on the nation.

Today politicians around the world have become adept at making a show of their concerns about the poor and underprivileged, of the need to take actions to address this or that humanitarian disaster political-economic catastrophe. But when push comes to shove, it seems that politicians quickly shed the mask of philanthropist and return to the world of reality, to Machiavelli and RealPolitik as it has been labeled.

And so we find Washington continuing to sit on its hands as the Iranians continue to work to produce a nuclear weapon. There are many reasons why Washington may have refused to act: ignorance and incompetence are both possible. But there is also the distinct possibility that there are those in Washington who see this as an opportunity to accomplish several things at once. The scenario plays out this way:

We continue to negotiate while never pushing so hard that anyone feels threatened that we will take unilateral action, such as instituting a third party embargo, to wit: the US will absolutely not trade – anything – with anyone who trades with Iran. In as much as the US has the largest economy in the world and is the world’s largest importer and among the top three in exports, this would have monumental impact. While there are those who would ‘run the blockade,’ the fact is that such a move, if enforced, would cripple Iran. There seems little likelihood of this happening.

As should be obvious by now, US discussions with the UN Security Council ‘Perm 5’ will yield no binding resolution and no definitive action on the part of the international community. The UNSC is, in the light of Iranian nuclear weapon development, North Korean nuclear weapon development, and the host of other situations around the world about which it has pontificated and then done little of note, demonstrating it is not substantially more effective than the League of Nations, although it is a good deal more expensive.

In any case, eventually, perhaps within two years, the Iranians will complete their first nuclear weapon. There will be an announcement, and probably a test, which will be followed by a great deal of Iranian propaganda. Then one of three things will happen:

1) The international community will accept Iran as a nuclear power and Iran will act responsibly and everything will return to something resembling normal

2) The international community will accept Iran as a nuclear power and, emboldened by the worlds’ inaction, the Iranians will let a nuclear weapon out, either via a terror organization or deliberately in a military attack, and Israel will suffer a nuclear detonation or

3) Some nation, recognizing that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is an insane and unacceptable risk, will act preemptively and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon program. There is an even chance that this action might take place before the completion of the first test weapon.

Option 1, while possible, seems unlikely to many and, to anyone thinking about it, represents an unacceptable position for the entire world: a rash and unforgiving government sitting astride the world’s largest oil supplies, armed with nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to explain why. Nevertheless, with the exception of a great deal of hot air being generated in a few capitals around the world, this is the de facto policy choice that most nations have bought into. Further, the possibility of a supposedly beneficent nuclear Iran suddenly ‘changing its mind’ makes this option untenable, because it leaves everyone who is sane waiting for Option 2 to develop.

Which leaves us with Options 3. The obvious question is: what countries are likely to act against Iran in a preemptive fashion? Four countries come to mind, in increasing order of likelihood:

Turkey: with a short common border with Iran, and as the nominal leader of the secular Middle East, it is conceivable that Turkey would either wish to keep Iran contained, or would support anyone who was willing to so act.

India: India already faces a nuclear-armed Islamic state – Pakistan. But with Pakistan there exists a certain balance of power, a certain ‘détente,’ which India can live with, at least for the time being. A nuclear and resurgent Iran would threaten the stability and balance that currently exists between Pakistan and India and might prompt India to act preemptively.

USA: The USA is obviously capable of acting against Iran and has at least made the most noise about the possibility of doing so. Whether anyone in Washington really has the disposition to do so remains to be seen.

Israel: Israel is the one country on the list, and the one country in the world, that is legitimately threatened by Iran. While it cannot be proven that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they were to obtain them, rhetoric from Tehran supports that conclusion, and from Israel’s perspective the consequences of such an attack are so dire that Israel has to consider preemption in order to insure survival.

Unfortunately, the fact that Israel is on the list, and everyone knows it, means that others will in all likelihood not act in anticipation of Israel acting. And the longer everyone waits and lets this drag out, the closer Iran moves to having a real nuclear weapon, the closer the world comes to Israel conducting a large scale strike, or series of strikes, against Iran. These strikes will even include, assuming the Israelis are not sloppy planners, a nuclear option, that is a final step in the event the others have failed, the use of Israel’s own nuclear weapons to destroy the Iran. And the Israeli planners are not sloppy. Which gets us to Machiavelli. Or, at least acting in accordance with the common perception of Machiavelli.

The “calculus” above is more or less common knowledge to anyone who has spent the least little time thinking about it. But, if that is the case, if it is that we are moving inexorably toward a large scale Israeli strike on Iran, possibly even a nuclear strike on Iran, why aren’t people more agitated? Certainly, no one wants that. Or do they?

In the end, getting Israel to act solves the most obvious of problems. For all of Israel’s (and Iran’s) neighbors, it eliminates one of the truly worrisome problems of the region: the rise of Iran. The countries of the Mid-East may rant against Israel, but most (Syria being the exception) are not worried about Israel attacking their country or trying to apply leverage over them. That is not true when they view Iran. An attack on Iran that not only eliminates Iran’s nuclear weapons program but also politically and militarily weakens Iran and weakens the regime would be seen as a good thing by nearly everyone in the Mid-East. That these countries engage in diatribes against Israel is irrelevant. They all understand the real power politics of the situation and would welcome Iran being taken down a notch. That they would use the event for some political theater for their own benefit is simply to be expected. But most would secretly welcome such an outcome.

For the far left in Europe such an attack would simply be viewed as an unalloyed horror. But, in as much as most of the European Left seems incapable of recognizing a real threat, just as they are incapable of mobilizing politically and economically to apply pressure against Iran, they are also incapable of recognizing that such an act would be to their long-term benefit. They will view every act by Israel to be unjustified and will recoil even further from Israel if and when she is forced to act.

For the US the situation is quite different. Despite all the hand-ringing about the collapse of the US empire (there isn’t one, but that doesn’t prevent pundits from talking about it), the US retains the capability to act against Iran politically, economically and militarily. Yet, it hasn’t. It would seem, rather, that those in Washington who might make a real effort to pressure Iran are refusing to do so, preferring to engage in Doris Day diplomacy (‘Whatever will be will be’). Which raises the question: Why?

Certainly, they are smart enough to understand that the longer this drags out, the closer Iran moves to having a nuclear weapon. Certainly, they understand that Israel has the capability to act and will be politically forced to act if no one else acts to insure Israel’s survival. But still there is no real move to apply the level of pressure needed to bring real change. There can only be two options: either they are incompetent and are not capable of understanding the gravity of the situation, or they wish this situation to develop along the lines discussed above. Such a wish is consistent with the most cynical political calculus: let the situation continue until Israel believes that no one is going to act to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon; give no definitive assurances that the US will, in the end act to prevent an attack on Israel; do not use the political and economic tools at your disposal to apply the pressure needed on the rest of the world to force Iran to change course; and in the end let Israel conduct the attack by herself.

Such an attack would be the best possible solution for the far left in the US, providing nearly limitless opportunity to lambaste Israel, while offering equal opportunity to cuddle up with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezballah and Syria, and while continuing to lament Israeli unilateralism, labeling Israel (and US conservatives) as the real threat to peace and stability in the Mid-east, all with the comfort of knowing that the real threat to peace – a nuclear Iran – has been eliminated for the foreseeable future.

There is, of course, only one problem with all this: what happens if the Israelis fail to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons capability?

Three Amendments to Our Constitution

The author does not believe himself as talented or blessed with intellect as the authors of the first 85 Federalist Papers. But the time has come to renew the discussion about the powers and extent of our government. And it is our government, not the government of the people who live within 50 miles of the Capital building. (The author would also like to apologize for the length of the following discussion, but some issues don't lend themselves to brevity.)

The bureaucracy, the organs of government, continues to expand, both in reach and in shear size. It would be one thing if this expansion followed from a serious and sustained public discussion as to the positive and negative impacts of an increasingly large, increasingly powerful and increasingly pervasive government, and a general acceptance that the benefits to be accrued from an increase in size clearly outweighed the costs and the risks. But there has been little real debate. In fact, much of this expansion has been without regard and without serious debate as to the effect their actions will have on the people’s liberties or to our posterity. It would seem that it is now time to, at the very minimum, ask whether it is best to definitively restrict the bureaucracy so that the people may remain both safe and secure and also free. It is to this end that the following is offered in an effort to stimulate this discussion and help to promote the changes necessary to keep our nation strong and free and our Constitution vital.

You will find discussions on three separate proposed amendments, one to limit federal spending, one to limit the creation of federal, that is bureaucratic, regulations, and one to limit taxation. These are serious subjects that require serious debate. The answers are not easy or simple and require that we all commit some of our time to studying how best to address these issues and preserve our nation. The following is offered to help fuel this debate.

________

The three proposed Amendments are:

Amendment 28 – Limits to Federal Spending

1. The Government of the United States shall have a budget no greater than 12.5 percent of the previous year’s gross individual income.

2. The Government of the United States shall not spend – inclusive of all federal outlays – more than it collects.

3. In the event of a national emergency, as declared by the President and agreed to by a super majority (2/3rds) of both houses of Congress, this spending limit may be exceeded. The emergency must be reconfirmed every 12 months by the President and by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses of Congress.

4. Following any declared emergency the Government must return spending to no greater than 12.5% within two years and eliminate any incurred debt with five years.

5. This spending limit will be met within 3 years of the approval of this amendment.

Amendment 29 – Limits to Federal Regulation

1. The Government of the United States shall pass no law or departmental regulation without establishing the cost to personal liberty, private property and to commerce of such action, and publishing these findings prior to final enactment of the legislation or regulation.

2. The appropriate House and Senate Committee will conduct a yearly review of each regulation passed by agencies within their purview. Regulations which have been challenged by the citizenry will be suspended until an impact statement has been provided by the appropriate agency and approved by the proper House and Senate committee.

3. Any regulation that is not reviewed by the appropriate committee in both the House and Senate within a year of being placed in force will be suspended and cannot be reissued until considered by the appropriate committee.

4. This amendment will be in force immediately upon approval.

Amendment 30 – Limits to the Income Tax, Amendment 16 is amended as follows:

1) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

2) The federal income tax shall be a no more than 12.5% of total unadjusted income.

3) No exemptions, allowances or other exclusions are to be provided to any one citizen unless they be provided to all.

_________________

In Detail

28th Amendment

Concerning Federal Spending and whether there should be limits on the ability of the federal government to raise revenue, raise debt, and spend the people’s money; and if there are to be limits how might those limits be defined.

________

A Proposal:

Amendment 28 – Limits to Federal Spending

1. The Government of the United States shall have a budget no greater than 12.5 percent of the previous year’s gross individual income.

2. The Government of the United States shall not spend – inclusive of all federal outlays – more than it collects.

3. In the event of a national emergency, as declared by the President and agreed to by a super majority (2/3rds) of both houses of Congress, this spending limit may be exceeded. The emergency must be reconfirmed every 12 months by the President and by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses of Congress.

4. Following any declared emergency the Government must return spending to no greater than 12.5% within two years and eliminate any incurred debt with five years.

5. This spending limit will be met within 3 years of the approval of this amendment.

There is little room for debate that there needs to be some limit to the federal government’s ability to tax and to spend. Limits on taxation are necessary in order both ensure a stable business environment in which jobs can be created, the people can find employment and the nation as a whole grow rich, as well as to limit, at least to a certain extent, the ability of the federal government to intrude into every sector of the economy.

Further, economists have long noted that the greatest amounts of revenue will be raised by what would be interpreted as low tax rates, in the vicinity of 10 to 12% of total economic activity. This is because low (and stable) tax rates allow for the maximum amount of economic growth, which will then generate the greatest amounts of both income and tax revenue.

Nevertheless, simple limits to tax rates do not and have not prevented governments, both the Federal and state, from spending more than they have gathered, the difference being made up by raising debt. These debt totals have now reached crisis levels in certain states, and threaten to do so with the Federal government, if it has not already done so, particularly when we consider the size of the unfunded annuities that the nation is now charged with supporting.

Several questions now emerge: Should the Constitution limit the Federal Government’s ability to Tax? Should there be a limit on raising Debt and on Deficit Spending? Should there be a limit on spending? If there is to be a limit on Taxation or Spending, how could the nation deal with a Crisis? What Standards should be used to ensure that these limits are met and not exceeded? Who would certify the Standards? What is the proper definition of budget? We will discuss each in turn.

1) Should the Constitution be amended to limit the Federal Government’s ability to tax?

The Founders established a government with the intent of providing it – the Federal government – only limited powers. Nevertheless, the Constitution specifically states that the Congress has the authority to raise taxes and that authority is not further limited. Further, through the powers granted by 16th Amendment, Congress was granted the authority to directly tax income in order to raise revenue.

The history of the debate to amend the Constitution and create the income tax is revealing: at the time of the debate on the 16th Amendment there was considerable discussion as to whether the amendment should provide for an upper limit of the rate for the income tax. This upper limit was rejected because it was argued at the time that to do so would be to invite future governments to raise the rate to limit, where as leaving the amendment without a specific upper limit would allow sane minds to rule and the tax would be kept lower. The limit which had been proposed was 15%. Within just a few years the tax rate was increased to 15% and just a few years after that to substantially higher then 15%.

In the intervening decades the income tax rate has been changed repeatedly, and many exemptions and exceptions added to the tax code. At times the top tax rates have exceeded 70%, while at the same time there is now a large segment of the population who pay no income tax at all. Further, there have been regular discussions about the federal government instituting a Value Added Tax (VAT), a national sales tax, as a means of raising additional revenue. This is, of course, in addition to the federal government’s authority to raise revenue from various duties and licenses.

In short, the federal government has a wide range of means to raise revenue, the income tax being just one of them. Placing a restriction on the income tax rate would not limit the size and scope of federal spending or the reach of the government, it would simply mean that the government would need to use other means to expand.

Therefore, any limit to taxation, if it is to limit the federal government’s total ability to raise taxes must address all possible taxes, not simply the income tax.

2) Would limiting the federal government’s ability to tax provide a limit to the size of the federal budget, that is would it limit the ability of the federal government to spend?

The federal government has the power to raise debt. That seems a reasonable and prudent authority, when used wisely. In fact, virtually every war that the US has fought, from the Revolution to today, has had to rely on debt to fund the war effort. Certainly, use of debt during a crisis is justifiable, assuming the crisis is severe enough. However, when used without regard to consequence the result can be staggering amounts of debt. The current federal debt has risen to more than $13 trillion dollars, and the unfunded annuities that the federal government, and ultimately the taxpayers, are now responsible for exceed more that $110 trillion. We have seen other countries with proportionately even larger debt. We do not wish to follow their course. But, both our federal debt and our unfunded annuities will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. This unlimited power to raise debt may well represent a destructive power in the hands of the federal government. But, limiting the federal government’s ability to tax would in no sense limit the government’s ability to continue to raise either debt or unfunded annuities.

Further, an ever-expanding debt provides the federal government with an incentive to sustain an inflation rate that can trivialize debt by continually making the currency less valuable. While this process works on the federal balance book, it also trivializes the work and savings of the average citizen – the people who grant power to the government.

It would seem that limiting taxation while not limiting spending therefore actually provides the federal government the incentive to do the wrong thing: to continue to raise debt and maintain inflationary growth at the expense of the very people who pay the taxes that support the government.

3) Should there be a limit on raising Debt and on Deficit Spending?

The normal purpose of borrowing money, whether by private citizens, businesses or state and federal governments, is to make long-term capital investments and defray the cost of that capital investment over the long term. While this is in fact the case with citizens and businesses, whether in the buying of a home or in the expansion of a business, governments have used debt – deficit spending – as a means to fund programs despite an inability to fully fund that program, and then extend that program into the indefinite future, at the expense of future taxpayers. While there are certain government programs that could be clearly labeled as capital investments, such as highways or ports, they represent only a small percentage of federal spending. In fact, little of the federal government’s debt has been raised to fund long-range, capital investments. It seems therefore that, at the very least, the people need to consider at least some restrictions on the government’s ability to raise debt.

What then should be that restriction? The federal government (and multiple state governments and local governments) has shown itself to be willing to live with ever increasing debt and equally willing to push that debt off onto the backs of future generations. (In that it is impossible for the ‘future to vote now,’ there is a reasonable philosophical argument that doing so represents an usurpation of power by the legislature, seizing freedom from future generations.) In fact, the nation has not been free of debt since the administration of President Jackson (1835), and Congress has shown itself, with one brief exception during the mid-1990s, more willing even then the Presidents to continue to spend money it does not have. Certainly there seems to be a need to limit the government’s ability to spend (at the federal state and local levels), but should government still have the power to raise debt?

It would seem that, given both the propensity of government to spend without feeling bound by simple prudence and the added incentive to ‘defray’ debt through continued inflation, while actually using very little of the debt for the purpose of anything that might be termed capital improvement, that the only reasonable course for the people is to limit the use of debt by government to addressing extreme emergencies, and then only when clearly recognized as such by an overwhelming majority of the Congress.

4) Should there be a limit on Spending?

If we cannot achieve the goal of control of government spending through limits to taxation, then the obvious course is to limit spending. The most reasonable course therefore is to set a firm mark that limits federal government spending. Following this course, the government would be limited to spending no more than a certain amount each year, and would therefore be forced to ‘live within its means.’ Only in the event of a true national emergency, such as a war, would the nation – the federal government – be allowed to raised debt. This would, of course, require the clear support of the majority of the people and, therefore, a veto proof vote, a super majority – 2/3rds, of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, should be required for its passage. Despite the veto-proof vote, the concurrence of the Executive should also be required as the Executive must be willing to use the extra resources to aggressively address the emergency.

Such an action would have several real consequences. In as much as the Constitution requires Congress to authorize and appropriate money each year, this would mean that each year Congress would have to revalidate the emergency. Thus Congress would be forced to go on record each year, with a 2/3rds majority, certifying that the emergency remains.

In the event of a war, which would seem to be the only national emergency that would be likely to gain and maintain a 2/3rds majority, this would essentially force Congress to declare war, rather then avoiding it as has happened repeatedly during the last sixty years.

5) How do we define spending?

It is certain that, with Congress making the rules, the definition of spending would be modified to the benefit of Congress, but not necessarily the people. Accordingly, it would seem that the optimum path, if we really wish to limit government, is to make the definition as clear and as inclusive as possible. Therefore, let us define government spending, within the constraints of this amendment, to include all federal government outlays, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, to include debt servicing, social security outlays, health care payments and all other programs known as entitlement programs, any non-budgetary payments, and any and all other federal transfers of moneys.

6) What would be the basis for spending?

Congress must have a limit that is defined and understood by the general populace. Figures such as the ‘Gross Domestic Product’ (GDP) have merit, but the definition of GDP, or any other such figure, could be changed by simple bureaucratic process. Accordingly, a method must be identified to ‘safeguard’ the definitions. It would seem, in fact, that the best course is to use a figure which will be considered of personal interest to the average citizen, one which he or she will be intimately concerned with keeping both visible and, for purposes of this amendment, low. Therefore, the obvious choice is to limit federal spending based on gross, that is unadjusted, personal income. This exclusion of corporate income in defining the baseline from which government spending will be drawn inhibits further bureaucratic chicanery that would seek to redefine corporate incomes so that the federal spending limit might be increased. This would not limit corporate income from taxation, simply exclude it when computing the federal spending limit.

7) If there is a limit on spending, what should that limit be?

While we seek to limit the profligate federal spending that has left us with a massive debt structure, we must not so constrict the government that it has inadequate funds to act. Therefore, the spending limit must be high enough to suit the purposes we have already assigned government, first among them being the requirement to provide for the common defense.

In fact, the nation is now overtaxed and government taxation and spending policies are actually constricting the size of the economy. As has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past, substantive tax cuts have invariably led to both massive growth in the overall economy and real income, as well as to significant growth in government revenues. What has not happened is an increase in government discipline in controlling rampant spending policies. Economic analysis has routinely indicated that the maximum government revenue will actually take place at a spending (and taxation) level of between 11 and 12%. Accordingly, by fixing the upper limit of federal spending at 12.5%, there would actually be an increase in federal revenue over current levels.

_______________

29th Amendment

Concerning Federal Regulations and whether there should be a specific limit on the ability of the Federal government, both the Legislature and the Executive, to create and enforce laws regulations; and if there is to be a limit how might that limit be defined.

________

A Proposal:

Amendment 29 – Limits to Federal Regulation

1. The Government of the United States shall pass no law or departmental regulation without establishing the cost to personal liberty, private property and to commerce of such action, and publishing these findings prior to final enactment of the legislation or regulation.

2. The appropriate House and Senate Committee will conduct a yearly review of each regulation passed by agencies within their purview. Regulations which have been challenged by the citizenry will be suspended until an impact statement has been provided by the appropriate agency and approved by the proper House and Senate committee.

3. Any regulation that is not reviewed by the appropriate committee in both the House and Senate within a year of being placed in force will be suspended and cannot be reissued until considered by the appropriate committee.

4. This amendment will be in force immediately upon approval.

Discussion: The federal government has already imposed such limits on the people in the form of environmental impact statements and the like, forcing the citizens to explain to the government the impact of certain actions before they are allowed to proceed. The justification for this is simple: the federal government, in particular the specific agencies, are acting on behalf of all the nation to ensure that the actions of a few do not have consequences damaging to the many. However, there is no similar check to the various offices and agencies of the executive branch save concerted action by the citizenry to keep the federal agencies from actions whose consequences have not been equally studied. This amendment places a similar requirement on both the Congress and, as importantly, on the bureaucracy, thereby preventing the bureaucracies from circumventing the issue of law by passing thousands of regulations that are never debated by the people’s elected representatives.

The rights and liberties of the people are limited whenever government passes a law or the bureaucracy creates a new regulation. Laws are, however, visible and the members of Congress are subject to recall by the electorate. Such is not the case of those who create the overwhelming bulk of the regulations that restrict the every day lives of the citizenry.

Recent health-care legislation is a good case in point: while it is possible, albeit difficult, to fully understand the basic law that establishes the current federal government oversight of the health-care industry, the legislation creates a number of new offices and agencies, each of which will have the authority to create their own regulations without any direct oversight from elected officials. The process to correct or redress any overreaching regulation will be long and tedious and almost certainly beyond the means of the average citizen. Yet there is nothing in the law which provides for a direct check to the bureaucrats who daily create this increasingly complex web of rules and regulations. Prudence would suggest that an amendment to the Constitution might be constructed to force the executive branch to provide for an analysis of the consequence of various rules and regulations before they come into force. How might this be done and how might it be done without creating both an even large bureaucracy and one that is hopelessly encumbered by administrative procedures?

1) While Senators and Congressman are charged with acting on behalf of those who elected them, there is nothing in the process of drafting, passing and funding a law that requires that they consider the consequences of their actions. Yet it is this very issue that led Congress to enact legislation that led to what are now know as Environmental Impact Statements, detailed estimates of the impact of this or that action on the environment. It would seem prudent that Congress be required to do the same, that Congress be required to provide at least the beginning of both a justification for a given law as well as a defense of it, showing how proposed legislation would address one issue without causing unintentional harm in another area.

Certainly, there would always be the opportunity for Congress to short-circuit such a law with poorly constructed and poorly thought out defenses, comporting to the letter but not the spirit of such an amendment. But, such is always the case, and it is the citizenry that must always hold the elected officials to task. Passage of such an amendment would give the citizenry a powerful lever to force compliance by the elected officials.

2) While there is a concern that various federal agencies do not act precipitously, it is recognized that they are charged with carrying out laws that have been passed and funded by Congress. No Amendment should be passed that inhibits the executive from executing the laws of nation. Yet the concern remains that the agencies create regulations without attempting to work through the consequences of specific regulations. If, however, regulations were subject to automatic review by the appropriate oversight committee in both houses of Congress, there would an increased possibility that poor or dangerous regulations would be stopped before they create harm.

To ensure that the various offices do not attempt to circumvent this amendment by continually reissuing regulations and restarting the yearly review timeline, it would be necessary to include that any reissued regulation does not go into force until it is considered by the appropriate committees.

3) One obvious issue of concern is that any effort to force the bureaucracy to develop a consequence assessment or impact statement for any regulation would both dramatically slow the implementation of any law and would increase the administrative costs of every office and agency in the federal government. To address this it will be necessary for the Legislature to develop a reasonable means of both evaluating the impact of various actions and of streamlining the review process. While there might be a concern that placing this requirement in the hands of the Legislature is risky, the fact is that it is in the Legislature’s interest to develop a streamlined procedure and in the people’s interest for it to be slow and difficult, so as to inhibit, per the original intent of the Constitution, the drafting of hasty legislation.

4) By placing a one-year time-line on all Executive branch rules and regulations there is an automatic stop placed on any regulation which has had expensive or extensive unintended consequences. This requirement to review within the appropriate House and Senate committees would force them to discuss these unintended consequences and go on record that they intended to cause such developments and accept responsibility for it, or having recognized the unintended consequences as unacceptable, modify the overarching legislation to redress the problem.

_______________

30th Amendment

Concerning Federal Taxation and whether there should be specific limits on the ability of the federal government to tax the citizenry; and if there are to be limits how might those limits be defined.

________

A Proposal:

Amendment 30 – Limits to the Income Tax, Amendment 16 is amended as follows:

1) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

2) The federal income tax shall be a no more than 12.5% of total unadjusted income.

3) No exemptions, allowances or other exclusions are to be provided to any one citizen unless they be provided to all.

This amendment amends the current income tax amendment, the 16th. It does not in any other way restrict the federal government’s ability to tax. There are two avenues of thought that attach to such an amendment: one would consider that such an amendment must be able to stand alone, the other that it must be passed in concert with an amendment limiting the authority of the government to spend. If it is passed in concert with a proposal to limit the Federal Government’s authority to spend, then the tax limit of this amendment would work in conjunction with that amendment and prevent Congress from enacting a wide range of other taxes such as a Value Added Tax (VAT) or various tariffs and licenses.

Conversely, if the amendment were passed in isolation, then Congress would retain not only the power to levy other taxes, but also to continue deficit spending. Accordingly, this amendment might be considered to be secondary to an amendment that limits total Federal spending, if the intention is to limit the ability of the bureaucracy to spend the nation into financial difficulties.

1) Under this proposal, Congress would be limited in exacting an income up to 12.5 percent. If this limit were passed on it’s own, Congress would be limited only in levying an income tax to this limit. Doing so would have the benefit of defining for future economic growth the ability of the government to reach into both individual and business income streams and provide to the free enterprise system a clear boundary beyond which they would be free to plan and expand.

However, this amendment, in isolation, does not prevent the Congress from raising other revenues, either through additional taxes, fees and tariffs, or through the sale of bonds or the printing of money and does not in and of itself further restrict the spending habits of Congress.

If this amendment were passed in conjunction with an amendment to limit spending, particularly one that limited spending to 12.5% of total individual (unadjusted) income, it would act as an effective break against other taxes as well as various fees and tariffs. In as much as the bureaucracy would likely wish to retain some fees and tariffs for purposes more of control then to raise revenue, the actual tax rate would in fact be less than 12.5%.

2) On the matter of exemptions, several points must be considered. The argument for exemptions is that they reflect the primacy of care and feeding – that Congress recognizes that before a citizen pays his or her tax he must first eat and care for self and family. However, if this is the case, then there should be an identical series of payments (food, housing, clothing,) that each receives. But, would that be based on household, or per person? Should it include transportation? Should it include power and water? This discussion leads to an ever-expanding series of exceptions, which are also known as ‘loopholes’ to those who cannot utilize this or that exception.

While exemptions began as a series of ‘obvious’ expenses that should be recognized before the payment of taxes – food and housing in particular – the fact is that exemptions have grown to include thousands of special cases. For those who benefit, an exemption has come to be considered a right and a demonstration of the just concerns of government for the general welfare. For those who do not benefit exemptions have come to be seen as loopholes in the tax code and subsidies from one segment of society to another. What one sees as a right and proper exemption that in the end all benefit, is seen as little more than a special interest loophole and ‘insider’ chicanery to others.

We might also consider simply whether it is the role of the federal government to be involved with the granting of exemptions in any way. Under what provision in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to consider one segment of the citizenry as apart and warranting special behavior? The answer of course is that it does not provide that authority. Every article of the Constitution and every amendment has been written o make it more evident that all are to be treated equally. Yet, the tax code is constructed to create thousands of exceptions to that concept.

While there are rational justifications for every single one of the tens of thousands of exemptions within the massive tax code, the question that needs to be asked is where is the justification within the Constitution for Congress for singling out what subset of society for a benefit, when by definition, to do so means to place the expense on another subset. The Constitution speaks to all citizens equally; nowhere does it speak of subsidizing one group, or in any way benefiting one group at the expense of another. While there may seem to be reasons – rationale – for doing so from time to time, every such effort has, over the entire history of this nation, resulted in unequal treatment of one at the expense, often great expense of many. While the intentions may have been good, the result has been injustice.

Governments must act with equanimity to all the citizenry. When it does not do so the citizenry should act to ensure that it does so. To do otherwise is to establish a de facto special minority, one that has more rights then the others, one that receives special treatment that is not available to all. It places one group in oppositions to another, separating the society into smaller special interest groups that generate conflict and consume the energy of the citizens. Such an idea is anathema to the sustained survival of the republic. It would seem that the only way ahead, as unpleasant as some may suggest it will be in the first few years, to end all such exemptions and move to consistent and equal relationship between all citizens and the government. The establishment of an income tax with no exemptions is a necessary step in that direction. 

The United States: A Raison d'Etre

I heard several people arguing the other day as to whether the United States was truly exceptional or whether it was simply a matter of perception, that everyone thinks their country is exceptional. Unfortunately, the people involved in the argument missed the fundamental question: what is it that makes every country unique and from that, is that which makes the US unique truly exceptional?

Political theorists says that it takes several things to make a country: a geographic entity (a chunk of land), economic viability and political organization (you need to be able in some sense to support yourself and have an organization that can handle the day-to-day list of tasks that governments handle), and you need to have a raison d’etre – that is, a reason for being or reason to be.

It is this last that is the most important, or arguably the only meaningful differentiator of one country from another. The raison d’etre – the reason to be – tells us why country X exists, why country X split from country A and pushed through all the heartache of the birth of a nation to become what it is today. It is the single most important thing within any nation. Yet it seems to have been forgotten.

It is true that for many nations around the world, the raison d’etre is at best poorly defined. Many nations in the world exist for no other reason that that they have existed – in one form or another - for hundreds, even thousands of years. Perhaps originally formed by the self-centered and arrogant for their own purposes and self-aggrandizement, smaller states slowly merged with other small principalities through wars and marriages of convenience to form larger and wealthier states from which more taxes could be squeezed. Many such states exist today, states that exist simply because they did exist, defined more by their geography then by anything else.

That is not the case with the US. In fact, the United States is one of the relatively few nations in history that was founded based on clear concepts and ideas, concepts and ideas that are embodied in four specific documents from our history. The importance of this is simple, but massive, because this raison d’etre, this reason to be, explains not only why our Founders engaged in this truly wondrous experiment called the United States of America, it also helps to explain why we are different and why we must not only celebrate that difference but also defend it.

When politicians say that they believe in American Exceptionalism just as a Greek believes in Greek exceptionalism, they miss the point of our exceptional nature, they miss (perhaps they never understood?) the real ‘reason to be’ that underpins all that makes us Americans.

The first document that I believe holds a facet of our reason to be is the Mayflower Compact. A simple and brief document, the Mayflower Compact establishes that they were forming a government, and state that is to create equal laws. While it still acknowledged the King of England as their sovereign, they are stating that they, the people, will determine the laws that govern them. This ‘simple’ proposition would later be a central issue that led to our independence, that we would not sit idly by while laws affecting us were passed on the other side of the ocean.

The second document is, of course, the Declaration of Independence. And the spirit of that incredible document is to be found in two distinct places, the opening lines of the second sentence, which are so often – and rightly – spoken:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -

Two incredible concepts: all people with equal and unalienable rights – that exist from God not from government, central to which is liberty; and that governments are subservient to the people, that the only powers they possess are those given to them by the people. This is unique – exceptional – material. And while other nations have attempted to mimic various elements of our system, few will be found that state this idea so clearly or who have attempted to honor the concept in daily practice.

A second concept is also provided in the Declaration of Independence that is, I believe central to how we as a nation see ourselves and see other nations and that is in the following line:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The key here is the belief that a people have a duty, a responsibility, to stand up and act to overthrow despots and to establish responsible government. This is truly revolutionary stuff, and it’s presence in our founding document made the US unique in history at the time of our creation and, even today, there are few countries that capture this sense of the real power being in the hands of the people.

The third document is the Constitution. Two elements of the Constitution must be considered, first the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A glaring statement, leading the legal foundation of all of our laws, clearly stating that the people form the government, that the government – the bureaucracy – works for the people as a whole, not the other way around, and that our prime goal is the ‘blessings of liberty.’

Second, the text as a whole provides a strong and explicit message limiting of the powers of the organs of government. While much argument has been made of what this or that line might mean, I would suggest that much of this legalistic splitting of hairs is the obfuscation of disingenuous lawyers. The Constitution as amended, when read as a whole, with the Federalist Papers nearby, makes an incredibly strong statement about limited government, about a government that has defined borders and must stay within those border, that the purpose of government is to provide equality under the law and equal opportunity within society. In no sense does the Constitution, or the discussions about each article found within the Federalist Papers, suggest equality of outcome. We are, after all, a free people, and our successes or failures are matters of individual initiative. It is the government’s responsibility simply to ensure the ‘playing field’ remains level.

The final document that defines our reason to be is Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and in particular, the final line:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In no other nation is found the clarion call to liberty and to true equality. Throughout these documents winds a thread that speaks to the birth not only of a new nation but a new people. Our motto - ‘E Pluribus Unum’ – ‘One Out of Many’ - speaks directly to a concept that has been rejected by many pseudo-sophisticated wags of the last 30 years, who have stressed our diversity and who have called for us all to not only recognize what makes us different but to ‘celebrate’ it. That call is anathema to the very nature – the reason to be – of our nation. We are no longer English, Irish, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Mexican, Portuguese, Egyptian, Japanese, Nigerian, Chinese, Samoan, Vietnamese or any other nationality. We have given up those other countries.

These documents both encapsulated and helped us to define our raison d’etre. And they have made a truly exceptional country, one that is unique in the 6000 year of recorded history. While some will be quick to point out our mistakes, the fact is that no country has ever made such an effort to advance mankind as this nation and no country is today poised to take over that role.

We are an exceptional country, a unique country. (And despite our seemingly endlessly ballyhooed faults by many in the media, I have yet to observe a mass emigration to all the other places that are so much better.) What we must do is act to not only preserve our exceptionalism, but we must stress it to the next generation. Our exceptionalism not only must be taught, it must be respected, cherished and nourished. It is not something to be haughty about, but something to be treated with the greatest respect and the recognition that each generation is charged with preserving it and preserving this nation, Governor Bradford’s shining ‘city on a hill,’ as a beacon to all who believe in liberty.

Let's Hang Mrs. O'Leary

Hang Her! Hang Mrs. O’Leary! It’s her fault. She should be held accountable – for everything. After all, it was her negligence that caused the Great Chicago Fire (October 8th, 1871), a fire which destroyed some 2000 acres of the city, as well as (per Wikipedia) some 17,500 buildings, and $222 million in property and left 90,000 people homeless, in addition to killing some 200 to 300 people.

The idea is, of course, ludicrous. (Particularly since the story of Mrs. Catherine O’Leary’s cow kicking over a lantern and starting the fire was a fabrication by a reporter.) The point is simply this: people, no matter whether they are negligent or not, cannot be held accountable for everything that happens after a mishap occurs – even if some lawyers insist that they should be. The theory applies whether we are speaking about Mrs. O’Leary or British Petroleum. What is the proper extent of their liability is a matter properly left to courts, and to some extent legislatures. But it is meaningless at this point in the problem before us.

But, there is an issue that needs to be addressed in the near term: what is government’s proper role and responsibility in a crisis or emergency?

The answer lies in recalling the essence of government: societies are formed, governments are created, to provide for common security, secondarily to assist in the development of those functions that are difficult for the individual to provide. Thus, governments provide police and armed forces, currency, the rules under which the society will operate and a means for enforcing those rules, and certain infrastructure, when it is too difficult for private citizens to do so. This explains not only armies and police forces, but also laws and courts, licensing and various business and construction codes, and public roads. (Some infrastructure has been privatized from time to time – toll roads, bridges, ports, etc., but they still must be operated so as to ensure public access, even if done at a fee.)

Governments also provide – since the earliest days of the Pharaohs – social stability. It is government’s responsibility to ensure that the society endures, even in the face of the death of leading citizens or in the case of the destruction of a large segment of a city. Or in the case of an oil spill. Stated differently, governments are responsible – broadly speaking - for crisis response. While there are certain narrowly defined, specific crises that can be handled privately (a ‘Life Flight’ helicopter for example), government is the prime respondent in crises for a number of reasons:

1) Authority. The government has the authority to act. Common understanding of public safety and well-being, concepts that date from English common law, and before that ancient Rome, places primary responsibility for public safety in hands of the government. Executive powers granted to most governors and to the President provide them with the ability to, through executive findings, circumvent standing regulations and the limits of certain laws to provide for rapid responses to the crisis. In the case of the United States, there is the obvious question of jurisdiction; is the crisis to be addressed by local government, state government or federal government? In fact, there is a fairly well developed set of rules that provides guidance to answer that question, which, while not perfect, does provide a workable solution in the overwhelming number of cases.

2) Resources. Governments simply have more resources on hand then do private citizens. This is particularly true of the federal government, which can raise literally billions of dollars at very short notice.

3) Assets. The Federal government has access to special assets which simply are not available anywhere else; from heavy lift aircraft and ships, to supplies to and equipment to support displaced people, to mobile command and control platforms to a wide range of surveillance and monitoring assets, the US government has assets that can be used to address a crisis unlike any other government or organization on the planet. The US government also has substantial strategic stockpiles of supplies to provide for extended support to any community.

4) Manpower. Governments have access to a wide range of manpower, both as a work force and as sources of expertise in most fields of study. Thus the Federal government can not only direct personnel from various departments and agencies to provide support, it can tap into virtually the entire nation’s array of corporations and universities both by appealing to them for support and by contracting for that support.

5) Moral Authority. The federal government, in the person of the President, represents the voice of the people. Use of that moral authority is a powerful tool in mobilizing and directing the citizenry to respond to nearly any situation.

Unfortunately, virtually none of this has taken place yet in response to the sinking of Deepwater Horizon. We have had some posturing and some childish behavior about kicking someone’s butt, and most recently the attempt to use the crisis to push a policy agenda. Beyond the work done by the Coast Guard, and the decision to send the Secretary of the Navy to the Gulf, little definitive has been done by the federal government to solve the problem. It is long past the time that this could have been addressed with a small ‘footprint.’ The American people, and particularly the citizens of the Gulf States, have a right to see some major ‘muscle movements.’ So, herewith some thoughts:

A) The President should immediately convene an emergency meeting of the following in New Orleans:

- The President, the Vice President, the Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries of Treasury, Energy, Interior, Homeland Security, Defense, Transportation, Commerce and Labor; the Directors of FEMA, MMS and the NTSB; the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers; the Governors and the Commanders of the National Guard from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida; the Director of the National Science Foundation; the CEOs of BP, Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, Texaco, Haliburton, TransOcean, McDermott, Schlumberger and representatives from other key oil and energy industry leaders as well as industry related institutes. Representatives from universities with leading geologists and petroleum studies should also be included. Use government funds to facilitate travel and housing of these people while in New Orleans.

- The purpose of the meeting would be to spend a day listening to BP and the Coast Guard describe the current situation in detail. If necessary, have a representative from the Attorney General’s office available to grant immunity so that the complete facts can be presented. Then spend two days discussing emergency response options to close the ‘leak’ and contain the spread of oil. At the end of the third day select which options will be pursued and put money against it.

- Designate the Vice President as the lead and leave him in New Orleans to run the operation. If that means he moves to New Orleans for the next six months, OK, it’s a crisis. He can fly back to Washington in four hours if he is needed to break a deadlock in the Senate. Then he needs to immediately return to New Orleans. Each government department Secretary or agency Director should designate their Deputy Secretary or an Assistant Secretary to remain in New Orleans with the VP to help in orchestrating the solution.

B) From each of the ‘team members’ listed in A, identify supporting team members. Using a strategic planning team from the Pentagon’s Joint Staff (the military are the only people formally trained in the full breadth and depth of strategic planning, everyone else just pretends) establish a Consequence Management Planning Cell that would draw on the expertise of the support team provided by the ‘team members’ from paragraph A. Develop a Consequence Management Plan that provides a roadmap to return the Gulf to a ‘pre-crisis’ condition. The team has two weeks for the initial rough plan, and 90 days to develop a long-term plan.

C) Direct the NTSB to conduct an ‘aircraft mishap’ like review of operation on Deepwater Horizon and of the sinking of Deepwater Horizon. Expertise should be drawn from the American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyds of London and others to provide insight into the latest technology, techniques and practices from around the world. Identify what mistakes were made, what material and design failures occurred and provide recommendations to prevent such occurrences.

D) Establish a strategic planning team that is charged with: reviewing the findings of the NTSB, and then working with the Governors of the states that border the Gulf as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the oil companies and the Department of the Interior (and others as appropriate) to develop long range plans that both sustains oil production in the Gulf and provides increased protection to fisheries, wildlife habitat and the interests of the citizens of the Gulf States over the long term. The plan should address handling future crisis caused by weather, material failure and mishaps, and hostile – terrorist – actions. The plan should be comprehensive and address improvements to systems to protect both oil production facilities and the coastline in the event of hurricanes of varying force.

- Charge the planning team with providing a comprehensive strategic plan within six months of the completion of the NTSB review.

As with all planning teams, the intention is to develop several options – each of which will satisfy the overall guidance and achieve the desired outcome. As each different planning team finishes its tasking the various options will be presented to the Governors, the President, and to the American people for their review and, eventually consent. In fact, within limits (because some information would be classified), each of the planning teams should provide regular and frequent briefs to the American people as to progress made and the options being developed by the planning teams.

This is a huge tasking. But it is precisely the kind of task that the federal government is capable of handling if properly led. What is certain is that no other organization has the means or the span of authority to handle this size of an effort. What is lacking is leadership. There has been enough talk about assigning blame and about advancing this or that agenda. It is time to find answers and move out. It is time for some leadership.