Hayek Versus Keynes Rap

Sunday Music Break

For anyone who hasn't seen this video, "Fear the Boom and Bust", take my word for it: it's awesome.

Why Is Former Senator Kirk Still Voting?

The Senate has voted on three pieces of legislation today that required 60 votes–to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, to reduce the deficit by establishing five-year discretionary spending caps, and Ben Bernanke’s confirmation–all of which interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) has voted on.

Of course, the Republican party doesn't care. The reason is because the Senate doesn't represent the people's interests anyways, but instead the interests of the political parties. The 17th Amendment allowed the Senate to come under control of the political parties and their special interests, and that's all it represents now.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the Senate to its Constitutional role of limiting the federal government.

Judge Napolitano: The Role of States

Part 5 of "The Constitution and Freedom":



As Judge Napolitano notes, the senate as originally designed was the structural protection of the Tenth Amendment and the safeguard of federalism. When the Senate's role was altered by the 17th Amendment, it stopped protecting people from the destructive and corruptive centralization of power that has created the federal leviathan that threatens us today.

Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center

Democrats Haven’t Changed From Their Pre-Civil War Days

Democrats Haven’t Changed From Their Pre-Civil War Days; Redstate

All I can say is that when Matt Yglesias makes statements such as this, in a whiny post about the filibuster [emphasis mine]:

If the framers had deemed it crucial that the Senate operate via supermajority, they could have written that into the constitution. What’s more, it’s not really clear what relevance the framers have here—they wanted an un-elected Senate, they wanted slavery, they wanted lots of things. Last, the fact that some version of this problem has existed for a long time is no reason not to change it. An anti-lynching bill could have passed during the Hardin [sic] administration if not for the filibuster.

is that the education he received left him clueless about the United States and its founders. But while this is damning in and of itself, Yglesias has no interest in actually learning the real reasons behind why the members of the Senate were not originally elected by popular vote or how the founders actually reduced the effects of the institution of slavery in the United States Constitution. Naturally, Yglesias supports the same party that filibustered the anti-lynching bill he mentioned. In addition, Democrats plan on having illegal aliens counted in the upcoming census in order to favorably reapportion House seats for Democrats, even though illegals can’t vote (at least unless they get “registered” by ACORN or La Raza, or via the universal registration legislation being drawn up by…Democrats); there is a similarity in what slave owners wanted at the founding.

Let me address the first point I highlighted. Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were not directly elected by the people, but by the state legislatures. There was a reason for this; U.S. Senators represented, and were held accountable to, the states as states. To put it frankly, Senators were accountable to the state governments; it would be elected state officials who would be held accountable to the voters. It wasn’t as described by Yglesias, that U.S. Senators were unelected.

For those who refuse to or don’t understand this, like Yglesias, this was somehow a failure of democracy. It wasn’t; the Founders established a republic instead of a democracy. Because the states themselves were in effect smaller cogs of a big country, it was felt that U.S. Senators were there to represent the states, while members of the House were to represent the people. Even the President wasn’t to be elected by popular vote; that is what the Electoral College is for, a conglomeration of the number of representatives and U.S. Senators for a given state. If the Founders had wanted more democracy at the national level, neither the method of electing the President or the original method of electing U.S. Senators would have been needed. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, direct elections by the people of U.S. Senators is now what is in place (I don’t want to discuss the merits of the 17th Amendment here, although I’m not in favor of it and would vote for its repeal, provided what is put in place is a re-establishment of the original wording of the first two paragraphs of Article I, Section 3). ...

Blogger's Note: There are a number of URLs within the original posting that I did not embed. Please check out the original post for the links and the rest of the article.

Political Royalty in a Democracy

Political Royalty in a Democracy; South Puget Sound Libertarian

One result of the Amendment was the creation of political dynasties. Senate seats are occupied for decades and a kind of royalty was created, such as the Kennedy lineage in Massachusetts, where a Senate seat is supposed to be passed down from one generation to the next in the same family, an interesting effect of democracy. The latest example of this process was the expected candidacy of VP Joe Biden’s son, Beau. Joe occupied a Senate seat for 36 years (how amazingly dumb are many voters in Delaware). But it’s news that Beau has decided not to run for the Senate, at least right now. This is news only because of the dynasty effect of the Amendment. ...

Blankley Agrees With Me

Blankley Agrees With Me; Manly's Republic

Gee…great minds really DO think alike, don’t they? Recall that in part 2 of my epic 5 part post series in which I revised and annotated the U.S. Constitution, I argued that the 17th amendment ought to be repealed. As it turns out, Tony Blankley agrees with me and penned an excellent column to that effect. ...

Kerry to Climate Bill Backers -- 'Get Angry'

Kerry to Climate Bill Backers -- 'Get Angry' New York Times

Kerry, a lead author of Senate energy and climate legislation, tried to make the case that his efforts would help curtail summertime spikes in hospital ...

Comment: Yes, yes...get angry and rally up at the holy church of father Al Gore and mother Gaia. High priest John Kerry is calling his sheepel to worship.

Senate rejects creation of commission to trim federal deficit

Senate rejects creation of commission to trim federal deficit; The Los Angeles Times

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a proposal to establish a potentially powerful commission to reduce the federal budget deficit, despite President Obama's endorsement and swelling voter anger about government spending and debt.

The bipartisan measure would have required Congress to accept or reject the commission's recommendations without making changes, a provision designed to prevent lawmakers from dodging the most politically risky proposals. ...

Comment: Another Czar? What we need is for the citizenry to vote for politicians that will start taking action to reduce the budget and reduce the size of government, not a non-elected Politburo. In this I agree with the Senate.

Bernanke rallies more Senate votes for confirmation

Bernanke rallies more Senate votes for confirmation; The Washington Post

Ben S. Bernanke's confirmation for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman appeared to be back on track Monday, as more senators indicated that they will support him when a vote is held in the days ahead.

His confirmation was thrown into question late last week when several key senators balked at giving Bernanke four more years as the nation's top economic policymaker. The uncertainty offered a glimpse of the political pressure cooker in which the Fed would probably operate in the months ahead, analysts said.

On Monday, Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said they would vote to confirm Bernanke for a second term. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he would vote against confirmation. Senate leaders plan the vote for this week, though it had not been scheduled as of Monday afternoon. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters that Bernanke pledged "transparency and accountability" around Fed decisions in the American International Group bailout.

Comment: There is little concern for the economy in the senate, only concern for their circles.

Write your Senator and tell them to dump Bernanke, and yes, begin the criminal investigation.

Gillibrand Lashes Out at Remarks From Ford

Gillibrand Lashes Out at Remarks From Ford; The New York Times

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand sharply objected Tuesday to Harold E. Ford Jr.’s characterization of her as “a parakeet” and accused him of engaging in a “fraudulent” campaign for her Senate seat.

Ms. Gillibrand’s remarks came a day after Mr. Ford appeared on an Albany radio show and suggested that she lacked the independence to be a senator.

“Understand that you’re not elected to the United States Senate to be a parakeet or to take instructions from the Democratic leadership,” Mr. Ford said, a jab at Ms. Gillibrand, who was appointed to the Senate last year to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Comment: Let's face the facts here; there's 100 parakeets in the Senate Mr Ford, and if elected you'll be one too.

Senator Mark Udall Says He Will Vote For Second Bernanke Term

Senator Mark Udall Says He Will Vote For Second Bernanke Term; RTTNews.com

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke moved another step closer to confirmation for a second term Wednesday after Senator Mark Udall, D-Colo., announced his decision to vote for Bernanke's re-confirmation.

"I am well aware of the criticism that Ben Bernanke, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, should have done a better job of avoiding the financial crisis that nearly wrecked our economy when Wall Street plunged," Udall said in a statement.

He added, "But there's plenty of blame to go around, and making Ben Bernanke a scapegoat will not get our economy back on track."

Udall said Bernanke "relied on his deep understanding of the Great Depression to help us avoid a second one," and that, in part because of Bernanke's expertise, "a bad situation was not made worse."

Comment: Ben wants more matches to play with, so Udall gives him a Zippo.

Tony Blankley: Repeal the 17th Amendment to Shift Influence out of Washington

As an early-1960s-vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th Amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th Amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.

But just as the Tea Party movement seems in so many ways to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th Amendment anew. After about 10 seconds' thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment - which changes the first paragraph of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to provide that each state's senators are to be "elected by the people thereof" rather than being "chosen by the Legislature thereof."(As I Googled the topic, I found out that Ron Paul and others have been talking about this for years. It may be the only subject that could be proposed and ratified at a constitutional convention with three-fourths of the state legislatures.)

At first blush, this might seem counterintuitive, as the 17th Amendment was brought about by a populist movement supercharged by muckraking articles in the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst. Those articles exposed corporate bribery of state legislators to control senatorial votes. As the direct election of senators by the people was a reaction to the corrupt lobbying of state legislatures that so aggrieved late-19th-century Americans, it might seem odd to recommend its repeal now - when again corrupt lobbying and the aggrandizing of excessive government power over the people is part of the fuel that is driving the Tea Parties.

...But in my defense, let me note initially that the 17th Amendment has not yet ended the legal but appalling bribery of U.S. senators - it has merely moved it to Washington.

You simply must go read the whole thing. And welcome aboard, Mr. Blankley!

S.2939 Audit the FED

S.2939 - A bill to amend title 31, United States Code to require an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, and for other purposes; Senator Jim DeMint R-SC

Full Text

Comment: No comment needed ;-).

S.1765: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2009

S.1765: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2009: Senator Benjamin Cardin D-MD

A bill to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless.

Comment: Let's use some reason here and think about this for a minute...hate crimes against the homeless?

How about removing the federal government from our lives and communities and maybe, just maybe, people will return to helping one another and we can reduce the number of homeless and reduce crime at the same time. Imagine if Americans weren't co-oped in their local communities by the federal government and actually became involved again.

Now there's an idea I bet Cardin has never considered, getting the federal government out of American's lives to help the homeless.

S.1554: Safe Babies Act of 2009

S.1554: Safe Babies Act of 2009: Senator Thomas Harkin D-IA

A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to prevent later delinquency and improve the health and well-being of maltreated infants and toddlers through the development of local Court Teams for Maltreated Infants and Toddlers and the creation of a National Court Teams Resource Center to assist such Court Teams, and for other purposes.

Comment: A waste of money and an area that is best suited for the states to decide.

Big Business Loves Government

From the Cato Institute:



Big Business especially loves centralized government. It's far easier to influence one central government than fifty separate governments. Then they push for government regulation because it will hurt their competitors far more than it will hurt them.

The best way to fight the corrupting influence of big business is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Rand Paul On Health Care Reform

He calls in to Fox Business's Happy Hour to discuss potential health care reform strategies, and other pending legislation:

Repeal the 17th Bumper Sticker

Comment: This bumper sticker was created by a member of the Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Group at Yahoo, Idahoser, and this is the kind stuff we should create and pass on to our friends and neighbors. It's an info war were waging and so we should be using every medium available to us to spread the word.

Senate election in Massachusetts cries out for 17th Amendment repeal

Senate election in Massachusetts cries out for 17th Amendment repeal; The Knight Shift

[T]he real reason why I'm not really feelin' anything one way or the other about this election is because in the saner world of another time, this election wouldn't have happened and Ted Kennedy likely would never have gotten close to a Senate seat anyway. Because before the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, senators were elected by the state legislatures! The Founders meant for the House to represent the people and for the Senate to represent the states. It's the way it was until 1912 when the Seventeenth was ratified and senators were elected by popular vote.

Sure, there were problems with the previous method of electing senators. But you tell me: could it possibly have been any worse than the dirty, corrupt slugfest that modern Senate campaigns have become?

Consider this also: would something like "health care reform" stand even a remote chance of becoming an issue in a Senate made up of members who were sent their by their respective states, rather than be installed (for lack of a better word) by political parties?

The Seventeenth Amendment has proven to be a failure more spectacular than Prohibition. It should be repealed and the election of senators returned to the individual state legislatures.

Comment: I agree; and I would add that the majority of our US Senators would never have been elected if the 17th was never enacted.

Repeal the 17th!

Senator wants changes to 17th amendment

Senator wants changes to 17th amendment; Washington Policy Blog

Comment: I won't post the Washington Policy Blog web log entry because I posted most of the information the other day, but I want to acknowledge folks are taking note of Sen. Stevens' bill.

Drop by the Washington Policy Blog and leave a comment in support of Sen. Stevens, the bill and the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment; Patriotic America

The 17th Amendment; Patriotic America

Did you know that US Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures? It seems strange to us now but this was part of the system of checks and balances intended to make the people more secure and keep the government limited. It would keep the states sovereign and would protect the people from abuses by either the state or federal government. People would have recourse from abuse by either. The Senators would be able to veto any legislation from the House of Representatives that threatened states' rights.

The protection of states’ rights was completely lost with the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, which said that Senators would be elected by popular vote. States lost all representation on a Federal level. We really now have two Houses of Representatives and nothing can protect states from usurpation of their rights by the Federal government.

We need to teach the history of the founders and the making of the Constitution if we expect to keep our republic free. Otherwise we become sheep and unknowingly allow the wolves to steal our freedom and protection.




Repeal the 17th Amendment by PatrioticAmerica
View more Conservative T-Shirts

Comment: This is great, the word is spreading folks. Now buy the shirt and spread the word further!

CA GOP candidates say Mass Senate victory means Boxer is next

CA GOP candidates say Mass Senate victory means Boxer is next: SFGate.com

US Senators represent parties not the people!(1)

The upset victory of Republican Scott Brown Tuesday in the Massachusetts Senate race had an immediate effect in California, where GOP U.S. Senate Republican candidates wasted no time going on offense -- vowing that Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is on tap next.

Former South Bay Rep. Tom Campbell made the first move, issuing a jab at Boxer -- along a claim that he will now take her on and address "the suicidal direction Congress and the President are taking our economy."

The combative statement from the ususally low-key Campbell hint at the pumped-up themes -- and energy -- to come from the GOP side in the 2010 CA U.S. Senate race against Boxer, where former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine are already raring to go. And GOP state officials were positively bubbly in their reaction to Tuesday's election results in the Bay State, where Brown handily beat Democrat Martha Coakley.

Comment: I added the subtitle to frame my comment (1), it was not part of the original article, so please let me explain why it was added. Normally I never post anything to do with the election of a US Senator from a particular state because I believe that is the business of the voters of that state. I live in Ohio and that’s my chief concern, other than yearning for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. However, once the person is elected and begins to kowtow to the special interests that will assuredly lead them down the road of personnel corruption, they are open to ridicule. Case in point was the Al Franken and Norm Coleman race; they languished in the courts forever and no mention was made on this web log, but once Franken won the seat and is now a big supporter of the Washington elites' “endless war” (what a surprise ay), well it’s open season.

In the article above one point resonated so strongly I had to bring it to your attention contrary to my posting parameters. After I read the article I noted a twisted focus. The focus is not about a statesman who is up against a citizenry that is fed up with a poor and miserable performance, no, rather it is about a party member who is about to lose the “party seat” and a place of power for the party in Washington.

Folks, our US Senators do not represent the people. Oh certainly they need a few of us to get elected, but they really represent their political party. That’s what the fight in Massachusetts and California is all about, the dam two main political parties, not us nor the states, not the economy or any other pressing issue, but the party.

No matter which side of the 17th Amendment you stand, for or against, no sitting US Senator represents either the state they were elected from or the people of that state. We are kept in this never ending foolish debate as to which of the lecherous groups is going to represent our supposed interests. This couldn’t further from what the founders intended.

You may not know the history behind the creation of senate and congress, nor the truth surrounding the enacting the 17th Amendment, but one item you have to understand, at least on a base level, is that the two main political parties are killing this country through the influence they peddle.

If we want to turn this country around, restore the 10th Amendment and rightful authority of the states, and repeal the 17th Amendment, not to forget the repeal of the 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve Act, we must break the dominance of the two main parties.

And with every element needed to restore the checks and balance of power to our Republic, the road to breaking this control must begin with the states. This country was created by the states, it will only be restored when the states use their constitutional authority and take the power back.

Don’t look to some grand national movement with some radio personality waving a Gadsden Flag to lead us out of this hole. It’s not going to happen because the two main parties, the special interest they represent and the government media complex will assuredly sink the movement. But if individual movements take root in our states and our elected state officials we know from our communities, who could also be from a "third party," change the laws needed to break the two main parties stranglehold, and begin to nullify a ton of laws, then we will restore this fallen republic. But it has to start in the states!

Washington State Legislation to Repeal the 17th

The collective slapping of our country’s founding foreheads; The Advance

Sen. Val Stevens is pushing legislation this session that would amend the Constitution of the United States, doing away with the 17th Amendment, which guarantees the election of our U.S. senators by a vote of the people.

Comment: Great news and if there are any supporters from the State of Washington please get word to Sen. Stevens of your support and get behind his effort.

On another note, if you happen to go to the link that had the original posting (top line), you'll note the party affiliation of the writer, wink wink, nod nod. If anyone out there has any ideas first, how to get across to the "democrats" that the 17th was not enacted to give the people a voice and to break up the "good old boys club," and second, how to get them behind this movement, I would greatly appreciate your advice. I personally think it's beyond reason, but enough people tell me the repeal movement has to be "non-partisan, so I'd like to hear what you have to say on this subject.

How Can We Repeal the 17th Amendment

How Can We Repeal the 17th Amendment; National States Rights Coalition

1. By educating the state legislatures of each state, to realize the Federal Government has stripped them of the power to govern, and in their place they have placed Bureaus and departments manned by non-elected officials who do not answer to the people, and since the people did not elect them, they can not vote them out of office. [Example US Fish and Wildlife vs. State Fish and Wildlife].

2. Educate them about the powers the Constitution originally granted the states to prevent this encroachment of the Federal Government, before the adoption of the 17th Amendment.

3. Educate them about the powers the Constitution granted them in repealing amendments, as they initiated in repealing the 18th Amendment [Prohibition] then, unify them so they all come together as a unit to use these powers to get back their rightful powers to govern, and eliminate these extra layers of costly government. [Article V of the Constitution]

4. Urge the State Legislators to repeal the 17th amendment to enforce their powers and sovereignty as outlined in the 10th Amendment, which will put a stop to the un-funded mandates and other intimidation’s by the Federal Government.

5. Many of the state legislatures are sending messages to the Federal Government reminding them of their sovereignty and powers granted to them in the 10th amendment, So they are really just asking the Federal Government to acknowledge these powers.

6. But when they repeal the 17th amendment, they then become a controlling partner in the Federal Government and can demand their rights and powers, If a majority of the states call for an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment and urge congress to do so, it will carry, as congress knows if they don’t the states can adopt an amendment by holding a state convention, which would make congress look very bad in the eyes of their voters. And the Senate knows if they oppose the amendment when the states adopt it they are out of a job for sure.

We need to set up action groups in as many Cites as possible in all 50 states to educate the people, and the PAC groups and other action-groups as well as the State legislators to show strong support to back up the state legislatures in this action.

We need your help in setting up an action groups in your city and state so please register now as a supporting member and we will correlate you with other members of your city and state.

Comment: The word is getting out and people are lining up behind this movement. Spread the word folks. It starts right in your local community through a simple letter to your local representative or a simple conversation with them in your neighborhood. These are the people we have to get through to because any real attempt to repeal the 17th will come from the state legislators.

Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the US Senate

From the web page of the US Senate, This Week in Senate History, 16 January 1832,

"French political and social observer Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate in session. Later, he described the 1832 Senate as 'composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.'"

Comment: I'm not going to ask the leading question...no, he wouldn't find statesmen in the US Senate today such as he found in 1832.

Senate Drafts 'Don't Blame Me' Legislation

They want to create a commission to do their job so that they can spend more time (and money) campaigning:

The awful idea is for Congress to divest itself of the core competence that the Constitution vests in it -- the power to make the taxing and spending choices that shape the nation. This power would be given to an 18-member panel assigned to solve the budgetary crisis.

Under legislation drafted by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), and endorsed by 33 other senators, the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action would be composed of 16 members of Congress (four each selected by the House speaker and minority leader, and the Senate majority and minority leaders) plus the Treasury secretary and someone the president selects. The panel would propose spending cuts and tax increases to put the government on a glide path to solvency. The menu of proposals would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote -- no amendments permitted -- in both houses of Congress.

I've got a better idea. How about if the legislature actually does its job instead of engaging in political machinations that expand the size and scope of the federal government while making it more difficult to hold it accountable?

Senators Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad: two of a hundred reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Kansas SCR-1615 Rally

Kansans are supporting a resolution to re-exert limitations on the federal government:



Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center

Dodd To Treasury?

Dodd To Treasury? The Atlantic

Roll Call speculates that Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) may not be retiring after all -- he may trade his office in the Senate's Russell Building for one in the Treasury. Could he replace Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary? It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but I doubt it.

Roll Call says:

For instance, several Democratic Senate aides noted that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is an extremely unpopular figure in the Senate. Geithner has also taken the brunt of the criticism for the administration's handling of the economy and, these sources speculated, if the country's financial picture does not brighten before Election Day, he could be the first secretary to leave the administration.


Although Dodd would appear to be well-situated to take control of Treasury if the position were to open, it may not be smooth sailing for his nomination.

....So while I think it's possible that Dodd could very well end up in the Obama Treasury in some capacity, I'd be pretty surprised if he got the top post. Maybe he could run the one of the new agencies that financial regulation seeks to create -- like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Something like that seems a lot more likely to me than Dodd replacing Geithner.

Comment: How's that for you; the fox builds his own hen house (CFPA) and the farmer agrees to a contract with the fox to watch over his hens.

Folks we should have repealed the 17th years ago. Get the word out, the oligarchical empire building must be defeated, the states' constitutional power must be restored, and the 17th must be repealed!

Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt

Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt; The Wall Street Journal

Dodd Weighs Dropping Idea of Creating Independent Body in Bid to Get Financial Regulatory Revamp Passed This Year

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is considering scrapping the idea of creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, people familiar with the matter said, an initiative at the heart of the White House's proposal to revamp financial-sector regulations.

The Connecticut Democrat, who announced this month that he wouldn't run for re-election this year, has discussed the possibility of abandoning the push for a new agency during negotiations with key Senate Republicans as a way to secure a bipartisan deal on the legislation, these people said.

Mr. Dodd's offer is conditional, however: Republicans must agree to create a beefed-up consumer-protection division within another federal agency, these people said.

The apparent willingness to forgo an independent consumer-protection agency would be a major concession for Mr. Dodd, who had blasted the banking industry for lobbying aggressively to prevent the creation of such an entity. "The very people who created the damn mess are the ones now arguing that consumers ought not to be protected," he said in June.

Mr. Dodd's shift comes amid a new sense of urgency to enact revamped rules governing the financial sector in what is now a narrow window before the November election.

Bipartisan support is believed necessary to pass such legislation, as Democrats aren't likely to get the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a potential Republican filibuster. With Mr. Dodd no longer seeking re-election, some of the pressure to apply a populist stamp on new financial regulations has eased. ...

Dropping the bid for a standalone consumer-protection agency would strip out a central plank of the White House's proposal and could infuriate liberals and consumer groups who have championed the idea. It could also breathe life into an effort to get a compromise on new financial regulations, assuming liberal Democrats don't break ranks.

White House and Treasury Department officials have so far remained committed to creating a standalone agency. "There needs to be a new agency with new powers for whom this will be a primary mission," said White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers.

Alternatives to the agency include a new division within the Treasury that would draft consumer rules, and a consumer-protection division run by a new federal bank regulator. The head of this division could be appointed by the White House, giving it more autonomy, people familiar with the matter said.

The CFPA was a main component of new financial regulations the Obama administration proposed in June, aiming to rewrite policies that administration officials argued had fueled the financial crisis by failing to protect consumers. The CFPA became a symbol of the legislation, and many Democrats saw it as a way to sell the financial regulatory overhaul to voters.

The CFPA proposal drew praise from Democrats, trade unions and consumer groups, but unleashed just as much opposition from many Republicans, business groups and banks.

Comment: Commonsense (at least I hope I am using commonsense) tells me that government collusion with the banking industry produced this emerging Bankgate intrigue, so if we create more government with the intended purpose to look out for and protect the little old "consumer," you and me, another Bankgate isn't going to happen? Not likely!

Franken supports troop hike in Afghanistan

Franken supports troop hike in Afghanistan; Top News Arab Emirates

Democratic Sen. Al Franken, who recently visited Afghanistan and Pakistan with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich, has supported the US plans for expanding the military presence in the region for completely eradicating terror outfits and bringing stability in the troubled region.

Backing Obama’s plans to deploy 30,000 more troops to the region, Franken expressed, "I do support the president's plan. I may have done it a little bit differently myself but I ... came away from this trip feeling that we already have momentum from the president's speech."

It was the fifth visit by Franken to Afghanistan as the war has entered in the eight year...

Comment: So much for Mr. Peace...

Senator calls for action on Yemen

Senator calls for action on Yemen: AP

A Senate committee chairman says the United States should consider whether air strikes, armed drones and clandestine operations are necessary in Yemen to defeat al Qaeda militants there.

Yesterday's remark by Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the armed services committee, was a rare admission by a senior official that direct US military action in Yemen is possible, if it has not happened already. Such operations are highly classified.

Levin was speaking after a three-day trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The White House and Pentagon have said they have no plans to send ground troops to Yemen, and Yemen has made it clear it would not want them. Remaining options would include covert strikes against al Qaeda targets and increased aid to help train and equip Yemeni security forces.

General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, has said he would like to double military aid to Yemen, which now runs at about US$67 million ($89 million).

Levin said drone attacks similar to those conducted in Pakistan should be considered because they had succeeded in crippling al Qaeda forces along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He said he would expect the quiet permission of Yemen's Government.

Comment: I will offer this quote by Alexis de Tocqueville, "All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it."

Levin and his cohorts in the US Senate are destroying this nation. The time has long since past for the States to regain control of this spiraling country.

Sen. Nelson Booed Out Of Pizza Parlor

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and his wife were leaving dinner at a new pizza joint near their home in Omaha one night last week when a patron began complaining about Nelson’s decisive vote in favor of the Senate’s health care bill.

Other customers started booing. A woman yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” And the Nelsons and their dining companions beat a hasty retreat.

Let's repeal the 17th Amendment and get all of them the hell out of there.

Judge Napolitano's "The Constitution & Freedom: The Legislature"

Great explanation by Judge Napolitano:



Hat tip: Minnesota Chris

Solve Problems, Repeal the 17th Amendment

Solve Problems, Repeal the 17th Amendment; Kenn Jacobine; A View From Abroad

The 17th Amendment (direct election of senators) to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. It has done more damage to the integrity of our political system than almost anything else. It has made it easy for Congress to enact unconstitutional laws, destroyed federalism, which was an important check on federal power, and has ironically given more power to special interest groups over the people it was intended to benefit the most – the common citizen. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: I'm glad to see postings like this, but I hope the author checks out some of the links we have on the right hand side of the web page to the scholarly papers providing comprehensive history and consequence analysis of the 17th, which would have made for a stronger augment.

Lindsey Graham Confronted on Bailout and Bankergate at Town Hall in South Carolina

As Senate Climate Bill Languishes, Lobbyists Press EPA on Carbon Regs

As Senate Climate Bill Languishes, Lobbyists Press EPA on Carbon Regs; The New York Times

Skeptical about the prospects of climate legislation in the Senate, energy companies and environmental groups have shifted their lobbying efforts toward U.S. EPA.

Energy businesses want to stop EPA from proceeding with its plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, a move expected to come in March. If the agency does decide to impose restrictions, industry wants them delayed until 2012 or later. Meanwhile, environmentalists are urging the agency to move as quickly as possible to regulate major emission sources.

Both sides hope they can have an impact, but lobbying EPA is different from lobbying Congress.

Companies that make campaign contributions to lawmakers cannot do the same with EPA employees. Some key arguments made to lawmakers, such as how legislation would affect certain states, workers or consumer groups, are far less likely to influence EPA. And the agency is limited in how much it can factor in cost as it decides on regulations.

"It's a different ball game entirely," said David Bookbinder, Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "When you're dealing with Congress, it's a political institution where political considerations loom large in any decision."

"EPA is clear, it is setting its own policy objectives," Bookbinder said. "We have no influence on that."

EPA in March is expected to roll out the first-ever federal standards affecting greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes. This follows the agency's move in December declaring greenhouse gases a danger to public health. The tailpipe standards would automatically trigger requirements that stationary sources -- such as power plants -- install "best available control technology," or BACT, according to EPA. The agency has proposed a separate rule to shield smaller facilities from those requirements, the "tailoring rule," which is also expected to be in place by March.

A large segment of the energy business, in conversations with EPA workers and in comments filed on EPA's notice of its proposed tailoring rule, is arguing that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will create havoc.

Federal regulations will conflict with state rules, industry advocates said, with many states forced to target carbon emissions from smaller sources that would be affected by the federal rule. As well, there is concern that EPA might try to govern what kinds of power plants can be built, favoring cleaner fuel sources like natural gas over coal.

Companies have realized that EPA is serious about regulation, and not merely making what many thought six months ago was a political threat to push Congress to act on climate, analysts said.

"There was a widespread expectation going into 2009 that this would be the year of domestic climate legislation," said Sam Thernstrom, who worked at President George W. Bush's White House Council on Environmental Quality and is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "2009 didn't turn out that way."

"EPA is going to move forward," Thernstrom said. "Industry has woken up to that fact. Potentially regulated industries that stand to lose a lot of money here need to pay attention to the regulatory process right now."

Many of those industries are lobbying lawmakers and asking them to rein in EPA. They are expressing support for a proposed amendment from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) aimed at blocking U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Read the entire article here.

Comment: The EPA's power just didn't happen in a vacuum; it grew as a result of legislators that catered to the whims of special interests rather than the interests of the citizens they represent.

Certainly there was a need to control the level of air pollution during the 70s and 80s, and while past legislation and regulation has had a great affect upon a corrected problem, nevertheless, we are watching an agency go beyond it's mandates once again because Congress, particularly the US Senate, caved into the whims of special interests and allowed for unelected bureaucrats to exceed what should be extremely limited authority in a exceedingly hubristic manner.

This will only be corrected when the corrupted power that is currently vested in 100 individuals is returned to the states.

Senate Candidate Hoffman

Not an endorsement, just a note that some candidates are as upset about corruption as the rest of us are:

Political corruption is finally a real issue in this corrupt state, because it's led Illinois to financial ruin and now almost every candidate running for something has an anti-corruption message.

Some promise transparency. Others vow to serve only one term. A few candidates -- particularly the smooth, buttoned-down consummate political insiders -- have declared themselves to be complete outsiders and expect voters to believe it.

There is one candidate who not only talks about corruption. He has actually done something about it, but he's not getting much ink.

David Hoffman, running for the U.S. Senate in the Democratic primary, is the former federal prosecutor who investigated sleaze as the city's inspector general, until he committed a series of cardinal sins as far as Mayor Richard Daley was concerned.

The sins? He did his job.

...

Hoffman angered Daley by issuing a scathing critique of the mayor's outrageously costly parking meter deal. Hoffman's investigations of illegal political patronage also embarrassed City Hall.

But what really frosted Daley was when Hoffman wired up a building inspector and later called in his fed colleagues at 219 S. Dearborn. If the feds ever focus on how city occupancy permits are granted to clout-heavy nightclubs, they might find a treasure trove, a never-ending pinata party with subpoenas instead of candy.

Hoffman also investigated that city pension fund deal involving the mayor's nephew, who received almost $70 million in investments, a deal the mayor said he knew nothing about. City Hall refused to honor subpoenas, so Hoffman again turned things over to federal prosecutors.

If you plan on parking in Chicago any time in the next 75 years, remember the parking rates were increased again last week and will keep going up in the years ahead.

"It was a dubious financial deal," said Hoffman. "Everybody parks on the streets, everybody uses the streets, and there was no public discussion. It makes people feel as if something was imposed upon them from on high."

Sen. Dodd: Health Care Bill Hanging By A Thread

Dodd: Health Care Overhaul Bill Is 'Hanging by a Thread'
by burghnews

We can only hope.

Senate Health Bill Targets Construction Industry

Via Americans for Prosperity:

The bill requires businesses with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance for all of their employees or face significant fines. This applies to all industries except one: construction. Under this new provision, construction companies with only five or more employees will have to provide insurance or face a tax penalty of $750 per employee.

The provision was added after heavy lobbying by labor unions, who argued that smaller companies with fewer than 50 employees will have a competitive advantage. Yet forcing small businesses to allocate enormous amounts of their budgets toward health care will bankrupt millions of smaller businesses in the industry. Even more troubling is the government’s willingness to play favorites when it comes to certain industries.

The last minute addition of this special rule for the construction industry was proposed by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) after some persuasion from lobbyist Daniel Gardner of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. When asked to justify the new provision, Sen. Merkley stated: “Construction contractors are overwhelmingly small businesses,” with 90 percent of them employing fewer than 20 workers. If companies with fewer than 50 workers received an exemption, he said, that “would effectively exempt the entire construction industry.”

That’s not the only problem unions have with the current proposals for the government health care takeover. They’re upset at the targeting of high-dollar benefits plans for a new tax – since their workers often have the richest insurance packages.

Senator Merkley, one of a hundred reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Threat to Ignore Election to Pass ObamCare

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

The ridiculous claim that he's "representing the people" is demolished by the fact that the people don't support the legislation. But this shows why the Senate cannot perform the job of directly representing the people. The nature of the Senate, including six-year, staggered terms, allows them to engage in party politics, which means pretending to represent the people only until they can get away with supporting their party's agenda.

And it will continue to be this way until the 17th Amendment is repealed.

Here's another interesting tidbit I found from the senate.gov website:

Prevailing practice is for state governors to fill Senate vacancies by appointment, with the appointee serving until a special election has been held, at which time the appointment expires immediately.

Politicians will continue to ignore the rules, the Constitution, and the people they're supposed to represent until people start holding them accountable. The way to do that is to allow the people to be directly represented through the House, and indirectly represented through their state legislatures by the Senate, which will ensure that the Senate fights to keep Washington's power limited.

Continuing the route we're going will just ensure that Americans treat politics like a season of American Idol.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Update: As Cameron points out in the comments, "ObamCare" or ObamaCare" is the wrong way to refer to the Senate's health care legislation.

The Goal here is to repeal the 17th. That's it. Keep the stupid right and left wing politics out of it. United we stand, divided we fall. Remember this. I'm in the middle of writing a bill to Repeal the 17th. Here's where you can find it.

Thanks for the correction, Cameron.

Candidate for Senator from Utah Mike Lee

State governments are more responsive to people than the federal government.



Here's his website.

Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center

Atlas Shrugged Tonight

If you're not watching Alabama crush Texas in the Rose Bowl tonight, consider tuning in to see John Stossel's take on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:



You can vote on today's Wesley Mouch at John Stossel's blog.

Dodd Retires; Senator Blumenthal?

Dodd (D-CT) announces his retirement.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expcted to get the Democrat nomination. Peter Schiff slams this maneuver. Replacing Dodd with a Dodd-clone will do no good.

As for Chris Dodd, well... his political allies are making sure that he gets taken care of. Politicians always take care of their own.

Peter Schiff for Senate.

Via Minnesota Chris - Peter Schiff on why he should be Senator:

Dorgan (D-ND) Won't Seek Re-Election

Senator Dorgan announced that he won't run for re-election this year.

That's one incumbent down...

New Health Care Plan To Be Crafted In Secret

Remember all those promises of televising negotiations and transparency? Not so much:

Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent. And, if the left-wing blogosphere is to be believed, the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.

The Talking Points Memo website reported Monday that Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again.

I don't understand how the House can take up the Senate bill and amend it without voting on it, but we'll see what happens. If Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts election for Senate, that'll make it that much more difficult for the Senate to pass this health care takeover.

Can Martha Coakley (D-MA) Lose?

Senator Coakley's Republican challenger Scott Brown is gaining massive online support:

Largely shunned by the Republican establishment, Brown has utilized an online strategy which has ignited a grassroots campaign to get Brown elected. Do a Google search of blogs, and you will see that Brown is the talk of the internet, and most posts about Coakley are negative. While the mainstream media still holds great sway, Brown is seen as rising and Coakley as more of the same. Brown is winning the online battle.

It's interesting that the national GOP refuses to assist Brown, despite that he promises to oppose Obamacare. I'm willing to bet that if Brown unseats Coakley, the GOP will find someone to vote in favor of Obamacare. That's how these politicians cover for each other while trying to take credit for opposing them too.

But it would be nice to see a senator elected without the support of the national party.

Ron Paul Challenges Ben Stein to Debate

Completely off-topic, but I thought it was too interesting to not post: