Proposal: A Limited Government Amendment

The Constitution of the United States, along with the Bill of Rights, is the contract between the US Government and We the People. Today, the US Government is in serious breach of contract. It has assumed powers, rights and responsibilities not granted by The Constitution, thus eroding the liberty of We the People. Given enough time, no law goes un-passed, no program goes un-created, no bureaucracy goes un-commissioned and no regulation goes un-imposed, and our liberty goes to zero.

Although this country's founders created one of the most brilliant governments in the history of mankind, they did not take steps to prevent the inexorable, monotonic expansion of our government that we experienced in the 20th century, and which continues to this day. Indeed, in the beginning, the US Government probably seemed a bit underpowered for the task at hand. It probably needed some healthy growth back then. I believe that growth has eclipsed their wildest dreams. We have reached a situation where we now need to put an upper limit on the size and scope of government while we still can. We need a Limited Government Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The basic concept of the Limited Government Amendment is quite simple, really:

• Congress shall pass no new law without repealing an existing one.
• Congress shall create no new tax without deleting an existing one.
• Congress shall create no new government program without deleting an existing one.
• Congress shall commission no new bureaucracy without de-commissioning an existing one.
• A bureaucracy shall create no new regulation without deleting an existing one (Congress shall delete from existing bureaucracies, the number of new regulations as required by any new bureaucracy).
• All new laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies and regulations shall have a sunset provision of seven years. If not renewed within that time, the law, tax, program, bureaucracy or regulation shall lapse. This sunset provision will force a periodic review and a national dialogue to determine if it is having the desired effect, or if it is obsolete.

That's it! Government growth should stop on the day that the Limited Government Amendment takes effect. Note that this amendment makes no prescription as to which law, tax, program, bureaucracy, or regulation to delete. Congress or bureaucrats get to decide that. Given the number of stupid, frivolous and obsolete laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies and regulations we now have, finding things to cut should be extremely painless, especially in the early going. Eventually though, most of the low-hanging fruit will be gone, and then government officials will find themselves having to prioritize. They will have to decide what is more important -- the new thing or the existing thing. I believe this is a good thing.

I said at the beginning of this article that the US Government is already in serious breach of contract. I think we need to make the Limited Government Amendment retroactive to some earlier time in our history. The question is, when would most people agree that we had the "right" amount of government? We've had two major inflection points during the 20th century: FDR's New Deal, and LBJs Great Society. There was considerable growth during the 1800s, but we were still settling the West. Therefore, I propose that we cap government at the level it was in 1930.

The Limited Government Amendment does not prescribe that we cut any particular part of the New Deal or the Great Society. It simply mandates that the size of government be limited to the number of laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies and regulations that we had in 1930. It took 78 years for the US Government to reach its present size and scope, so I propose that this amendment should allow 78 years to return to the 1930s size and scope.

Therefore, in the beginning, congress will be required to delete the number of laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies or regulations for each new one that it creates, that allows us to reach the target 1930 size and scope in 78 years. When we reach the target, then the number shall equal one, to maintain the steady state.

An attempt to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment failed in the 1980s. If passed, it might have slowed government growth slightly, but it did not address the real problem. The Limited Government Amendment would limit the size and scope of government. This should naturally reduce the cost of government. It might even create a surplus in the long run, which, under the terms of this amendment, Congress would have to return to We the People in the form of lower taxes.

The language of the Limited Government Amendment must be phrased in such a way as to circumvent the inevitable attempts by politicians to find loopholes and new ways to grow government. Finally, to prevent misinterpretation by any future activist Supreme Court, we must include in the Limited Government Amendment, a specification that the articles of the amendment say what they mean, and mean what they say, and that they are specifically written in Standard English. They are to be taken literally. They are not to be deconstructed, and there is no hidden agenda or penumbra.

Twitter vs. Achmedinajad

This is a fascinating story. Twitter defers scheduled maintenance to midnight Iran time, so that dissidents can continue to communicate.

Time For a Good Liberty Rant

The Constitution specifies a federated government. The US Government is supposed to be a lightweight framework to hold together the several states. The majority of power belongs to the states, and to the people. The people and the states get to choose their own style of government based on their regional needs and preferences. Not the one-size-fits-all, top-down, centrally-planned monstrosity that we've been drifting toward for the past 80 years.

We have all this nasty discourse because when the government starts taking sides, and handing out free stuff at other people's expense, the special interests line up around the block to influence government. And they fight tooth and nail to prevent the unsympathetic party from gaining power, because that wrecking ball swings both ways, baby. Neither party has a lock on inappropriately concentrating power in the federal government, although the Democrats do seem to do it faster than the Republicans do.

One definition of tyranny is special interests using the force of government to shove their agenda down your throat. Down with both political parties! I just want my liberty back!

Limiting the Federal Government Might Not Matter

In light of this video, it might not matter what happens with our government. We could be wasting our time.

Barack Obama -- Figured Out

Barack Obama is using the principle it's easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. He just does what he wants in the hopes that no one will challenge him. So far, neither congress nor the mainstream media have challenged him. Instead of being his watchdogs, they're his lapdogs.

(updated)

Letter to Congressman Larsen

Dear Congressman Larsen,

Thank you for holding the town meeting in Ferndale this Saturday. I had a couple of comments, but time ran out, so I'm sending it here.

I was pleased to hear that you thought that Waxman's cap & trade bill is flawed, but I was dismayed that your objection seemed to be wrapped up in quibbling over the allocation of carbon credits.

As a life-long student of science and the philosophy of science, as well as an amateur meteorologist who knows the difficulty in getting accurate climate data, I was frustrated that you appear to have accepted the premise:

1. That global warming (now A.K.A. climate change, because evidence of warming is diminishing) is a problem that has, or needs, a solution (least of all a government solution).

2. That CO2 is a pollutant (The Supreme Court decision doesn't impress me any more than the 1897 Indiana legislature declaring PI to be rational).

3. That the science is settled. Concensus is no substitute for the truth. A true scientist is skeptical, and seeks the truth, not a hug.

Cap & trade, or carbon tax, or whatever you want to call it, will not "punish" polluters. It will merely increase the cost of everything -- from food and transportation, refrigeration and home heating to recreational activities. It will punish everyone, and it will situate the federal government squarely in the middle of practically everything we ever do. It is a central government power grab of historical proportions. Please do not stand by and allow individual liberty to be decimated in this way.

Like it or not, the US Constitution does not grant the government the authority to "save the planet". One definition of tyranny is special interests using the force of government to ram their agenda down my throat. If Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi want us to save the planet, they have the first amendment right to make the case to convince We the People to do so of our own free will.

Finally, be careful what you wish for. Alternative energy can be seductive. The flaws in new technology are rarely evident when only a few people are using it. When 300 million are, the problems become obvious when it is too late. For example, do you think environmentalists (or even land owners within view) will allow windmills on every hillcrest in the country? How about solar collectors? I don't think so. That 300 million people use fossil fuel with surprisingly few problems is a clue that we shouldn't be too hasty to throw it out.

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano

I Sent This to My Elected Reps...

Dear Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray and Congressman Larsen,

I sent the following message to President Obama, but it's for you too.

Dear President Obama,

Please, please, please DO NOT nationalize health care! The United States has the best health care system in the world. By nationalizing health care, you will reduce our liberty in ways that we cannot even imagine. I do not want the Federal Government to have that much power over me and my family.

The Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government in that role. For the federal government to abide by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, it will have to roll back nearly 100 years of growth, and return that power to the states and the people.

I know that isn't what you or most statists want to hear, but it's true.

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano

I'll post their responses as/if they come in...