Scholar: America’s Government Is ‘Irreparably Broken’

[rangerrebew]

- The Daily Caller - http://dailycaller.com -



Scholar: America’s Government Is ‘Irreparably Broken’

Posted By Ginni Thomas On 10:07 PM 08/08/2015 In | No Comments

 

Calling our American experiment in limited government “irreparably broken,” Charles Murray, a libertarian scholar, says, “we can’t roll back the power of government through the normal political process.”

“If you think about how a kleptocracy operates in a third world country, and then you look at how Washington works now, operationally speaking, there’s very little distinction.”

Our government’s unelected bureaucrats can, by picking winners and losers, bring most any business down and destroy lives, Murray documents in his new book, “By the People.”

Murray, a provocative and prolific scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case in this book that there’s a proven inability to stop the expansion of the federal government. Murray blames both political parties for the corruption, but has even more harsh words for the tendencies of the U.S. Supreme Court since the New Deal.

 
Congress isn’t restraining an aggressive, lawless Obama administration because “they have to raise vast sums of money for their campaigns.” Citizens don’t get access to Congress unless you fork over contributions, he says. Secondly, Murray sees Congress as serving their donors by collaborating with bureaucracies for the politically-connected interests, making them co-conspirators instead of opponents. Thirdly, referencing how former House Speaker Dennis Hastert could afford to pay $3.5 million in bribes, Murray says that office-holders and staffers leave Congress to lobby and “cash out,” so they cannot burn bridges by being adversarial.

Commenting on the progressive elites’ victory in creating a massive, unaccountable, unstoppable regulatory state over the last few decades, Murray said progressives believe “the Constitution is antiquated. It’s a road block” to their ideological goals. He says progressives believe “what we need are experts who could solve these objective problems.”

He says that by the mid-1930s, the majority of the Supreme Court began to agree. Murray says we can’t go back to limited government and greater liberties “without saying that 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.” Now, we “are locked into a Wilsonian state” that is “out of reach by democracy.”

The first half of this 22 minute video interview details the growth of government. The second half of the book is on his solutions of civil disobedience, legal defense funds and occupational legal funds. Murray wants to, for the first time, “make government an insurable hazard.” He has also offered a cartoon guide, available here, to promote the understanding and use of his book for civil disobedience.

 

Murray has a canny knack for edgy scholarship that places missed opportunities right in front of citizens and our leaders. He did it with “Losing Ground,” “The Bell Curve” and “Coming Apart.” Now, many are quietly discussing whether Murray is on to a good idea against the burgeoning administrative state. Murray’s controversial solution is so revolutionary that he even took steps to prepare for the IRS penalizing him for his views with an audit in the future.

For more on these ideas, follow Murray on Twitter.

Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.



Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/08/scholar-americas-government-is-irreparably-broken/

[aligncare]

The answer is article 5 convention of the states. Why is that the answer?

Because the federal government cannot – or, will not – reform itself. Reform will have to be imposed  from without, by the very entities that gave rise to the federal government: the states.

[DCPatriot]

And the problem with term limits?

There would be runaway graft and corruption to make their $$ in a shorter time span.

[Bigun]

The answer is article 5 convention of the states. Why is that the answer?

Because the federal government cannot – or, will not – reform itself. Reform will have to be imposed  from without, by the very entities that gave rise to the federal government: the states.

Knowing the history of such things I am greatly fearful of that but, at the same time,  acknowledge that it may be the only route left open to us if the democrats win this election.

[Right_in_Virginia]

And the problem with term limits?

There would be runaway graft and corruption to make their $$ in a shorter time span.

Wow, that's a little dark.

I've been leaning toward term limits for a while.  Politics as a lifelong career has to end--it's the breeding ground for corruption and puts more and more distance between the elected official and the people he/she represents.  Neither are ingredients for a healthy representative republic.

[EC]

Oddly, I had the best explanation of why term limits are not a great idea - at the moment - from an out and out Liberal (Libby, aka K8ee - some of you might remember her).

New minted politicians spend a couple of years learning how the gears work when they get elected. During that time they are courted and guided by lobbyists. Term limiting Representatives and Senators gives lobbyists a fresh batch of influence every two years, so corruption would tend to get worse rather than better.

Deal with the lobbyists FIRST - then apply term limits. 

[Bigun]

Oddly, I had the best explanation of why term limits are not a great idea - at the moment - from an out and out Liberal (Libby, aka K8ee - some of you might remember her).

New minted politicians spend a couple of years learning how the gears work when they get elected. During that time they are courted and guided by lobbyists. Term limiting Representatives and Senators gives lobbyists a fresh batch of influence every two years, so corruption would tend to get worse rather than better.

Deal with the lobbyists FIRST - then apply term limits. 

Deal with what creates the lobbyists (the tax code) and the lobbyists will disappear!
 

[libertybele]

Knowing the history of such things I am greatly fearful of that but, at the same time,  acknowledge that it may be the only route left open to us if the democrats win this election.

I am not clear on how a Constitutional Convention works---Doesn't it restrict the powers of the federal government leaving the power to the states??  I thought last year that there were enough states to call a Constitutional Convention and never heard anything further.  Basically, it's amending the Constitution, right, but wouldn't all the states have to unanimously agree to the amendments??

Seems like there's a whole lot of room for a lot to backfire.

[Bigun]

I am not clear on how a Constitutional Convention works---Doesn't it restrict the powers of the federal government leaving the power to the states??  I thought last year that there were enough states to call a Constitutional Convention and never heard anything further.  Basically, it's amending the Constitution, right, but wouldn't all the states have to unanimously agree to the amendments??

Seems like there's a whole lot of room for a lot to backfire.

The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The last time there was a convention used in this way the Articles of Confederation were completely thrown out and we wound up with and entirely new Constitution.

[Carling]

The answer is article 5 convention of the states. Why is that the answer?

Because the federal government cannot – or, will not – reform itself. Reform will have to be imposed  from without, by the very entities that gave rise to the federal government: the states.

There is no common ground between the state of, say, Massachusetts, and a state like Texas.  An Article 5 convention would be a circus.  The real answer is some states to start ignoring federal laws and court decisons, and to strongly consider secession. 

[Fishrrman]

I just finished reading Mr. Murray's book "By The People" a couple of weeks ago. I thought it comprised a very interesting approach to an almost-insurmountable problem -- with one of the greatest obstacles being the regulatory state which is ever-growing in scope and power.

But if Mr. Murray's proposals aren't enough, I agree with aligncare above (I think he's been reading my posts here) that an Article V convention of the states may become the only peaceful way to restore the republican government (that's "republican" with a small "r") that was established by the Founders.

It's a risk, of course, as was the decision to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
But it's a risk we have to take. If we're unwilling to take it, we can't complain about the soft-totalitarianism that is comin' down the pike.

And time is going to soon run out for even that.
When it does, there will still remain -other ways- of changing the DC government, but they probably aren't going to be "peaceful".

By the way, you can scrounge up a copy of Murray's book on the net, if you know where to look. I was surprised that it was "out there". But it is.

P.S.
Carling's post 9 is noted.
However, I think there are more "predominantly red" states than there are "blue" states. The influence of the blue states could be deliberately (and openly) limited by the red states, if they are willing to put up with the firestorm of noise and hate from the left and from the press.

It is doable. The left could be "shut out" of the deliberations, and in the final vote, they wouldn't matter.
If not, Carling's prediction may play out...

[Bigun]

There is no common ground between the state of, say, Massachusetts, and a state like Texas.  An Article 5 convention would be a circus.  The real answer is some states to start ignoring federal laws and court decisons, and to strongly consider secession.

I wouldn't go so far as to say there is NO common ground between the two states you mention but there is so little common ground it would difficult indeed to find that which exists.

[Bigun]

I just finished reading Mr. Murray's book "By The People" a couple of weeks ago. I thought it comprised a very interesting approach to an almost-insurmountable problem -- with one of the greatest obstacles being the regulatory state which is ever-growing in scope and power.

But if Mr. Murray's proposals aren't enough, I agree with aligncare above (I think he's been reading my posts here) that an Article V convention of the states may become the only peaceful way to restore the republican government (that's "republican" with a small "r") that was established by the Founders.

It's a risk, of course, as was the decision to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
But it's a risk we have to take. If we're unwilling to take it, we can't complain about the soft-totalitarianism that is comin' down the pike.

And time is going to soon run out for even that.
When it does, there will still remain -other ways- of changing the DC government, but they probably aren't going to be "peaceful".

By the way, you can scrounge up a copy of Murray's book on the net, if you know where to look. I was surprised that it was "out there". But it is.

P.S.
Carling's post 9 is noted.
However, I think there are more "predominantly red" states than there are "blue" states. The influence of the blue states could be deliberately (and openly) limited by the red states, if they are willing to put up with the firestorm of noise and hate from the left and from the press.

It is doable. The left could be "shut out" of the deliberations, and in the final vote, they wouldn't matter.
If not, Carling's prediction may play out...

As I said earlier it may come to that. Likely WILL if another democrat follows Obama into the White House but I'm not ready to sign on just yet!

[Free Vulcan]

We can do whatever we want, but we are long past the line of no return on the debt. There is no way back without a great deal of pain and sacrifice, even if we do manage to reel in DC.

I don't know how we are going to keep this country together, because at some point when the chickens roost, DC is going to be powerless to do anything, and the states will be on their own. I expect the marriage to be over that point and groups of states go their own way, while other countries voluntarily or involuntarily acquire other states for their own purposes.

[Bigun]

We can do whatever we want, but we are long past the line of no return on the debt. There is no way back without a great deal of pain and sacrifice, even if we do manage to reel in DC.

I don't know how we are going to keep this country together, because at some point when the chickens roost, DC is going to be powerless to do anything, and the states will be on their own. I expect the marriage to be over that point and groups of states go their own way, while other countries voluntarily or involuntarily acquire other states for their own purposes.

I respectfully disagree with you on this for two reasons.

1. The people we owe all that money to are us for the most part.

2. With proper management and a proper tax code we can grow ourselves out of this in fairly short order.

[Free Vulcan]

I respectfully disagree with you on this for two reasons.

1. The people we owe all that money to are us for the most part.

2. With proper management and a proper tax code we can grow ourselves out of this in fairly short order.

10 or 15 years ago I would have been more optimistic, but what has happened during this administration has tipped us over the edge to where we are at catastrophic consequences if it ever unravels, for a number of reasons.

- The bond market is a fraction of our total debt, should China alone dump their holdings of our debt, it would send interest rates soaring. This is going to manifest next recession as our buying of Chinese goods will mean less money recycled back into our stock and bond markets.

- At the same time, we are going to see a spike in welfare and unemployment and lower tax revenues, meaning the govt will have a huge borrowing need. At some point that squeeze between supply and demand is when rates spike it will rapidly spiral to the point where we don't have the cash flow to service that debt, and we are in default.

- China is working now to upgrade it's financial system to be the worlds reserve currency, when that happens due to our financial woes, the world will dump ours and devalue it to a fraction if it's worth today.

- The effect will create hyperstagflation and tip off a spiral of layoffs, business closures, and people with no money to spend. It will crush the banks as people default on mortgages and loans, and with a worthless currency, spending dries up, factories and businesses close, and the cycle repeats.

- The banking system will come to a halt. The Fed will try to keep it afloat, but with a worthless currency it's all for naught. Things drop to barter subsistence level. At that point the Federal govt will collapse as it has no more money to spend. The cities burn, and we can even afford to maintain martial law. It's at that point that the states will take matters in their own hands, if even they have that ability themselves. Govt may be at a county level, if that. At that point countries like China, Mexico, and Russia will be enticed to take territory as repayment for our debt.

- Even a massive change in the tax and regs codes right now, today, will have a difficult time avoiding that. Technology is changing, the economy of the future requires real education and skills. There will be less and less demand for unskilled workers.Because of welfare, the education system, and the unions, we have a workforce that is very uneducated, unskilled, and too many are welfare dependent. We have tens of millions of people who have no way to provide themselves an income. That doesn't even address the retiring Baby Boomers.

I'm not trying to be doom and gloom, but until someone can show me an economic path forward, I'm not hopeful. As I said, I don't know in that scenario how the country can hold together. My advice to people is L2A - Learn to Live Amish. Self-sufficiency will be the new currency in the coming order.

[andy58-in-nh]

I respectfully disagree with you on this for two reasons.

1. The people we owe all that money to are us for the most part.

2. With proper management and a proper tax code we can grow ourselves out of this in fairly short order.

Actually, no on both counts.
 
1. The "people" we owe this debt to are the owners of US Treasury bonds, largely: The Federal Reserve Bank (a private entity), Japan and China. Of late, China has been dumping our debt and the FRB has been buying it back, along with increasingly short-term new debt issues.
 
2. There is no longer any way, mathematically speaking, that we can grow ourselves out of our debt. None. There is no possible combination of tax rate efficiency, Federal spending reduction and GDP growth that will now be able to result in the payment of our current obligations. 
 
Even if all Federal entitlement spending was frozen at current levels (politically impossible), tax rates were reduced to levels consistent with historical growth maximization and zero deficit generation/debt reduction (15-17% of GDP), and a moratorium placed on new Federal regulations (equally impossible in today's environment), it wouldn't come close to "bending the curve" enough to make a difference.
 
Sorry, but the hard truth is that we passed the last exit on the highway in about 2005, when it might still have been possible to freeze spending enough, cut tax rates enough, deregulate enough, and grow the economy enough to overcome what was then "only" a $10 Trillion hole. That hole has almost doubled in size in 10 years, and worse, the conditions necessary to start "refilling it" have deteriorated badly since then.
 
And that is why what is coming... is coming. When? When the Federal Reserve begins to lose control of interest rates, that's when you'll know.
 
     

[alicewonders]

We can no more turn this back than Thelma and Louise could go in reverse.

[Bigun]

Actually, no on both counts.
 
1. The "people" we owe this debt to are the owners of US Treasury bonds, largely: The Federal Reserve Bank (a private entity), Japan and China. Of late, China has been dumping our debt and the FRB has been buying it back, along with increasingly short-term new debt issues.
 
2. There is no longer any way, mathematically speaking, that we can grow ourselves out of our debt. None. There is no possible combination of tax rate efficiency, Federal spending reduction and GDP growth that will now be able to result in the payment of our current obligations. 
 
Even if all Federal entitlement spending was frozen at current levels (politically impossible), tax rates were reduced to levels consistent with historical growth maximization and zero deficit generation/debt reduction (15-17% of GDP), and a moratorium placed on new Federal regulations (equally impossible in today's environment), it wouldn't come close to "bending the curve" enough to make a difference.
 
Sorry, but the hard truth is that we passed the last exit on the highway in about 2005, when it might still have been possible to freeze spending enough, cut tax rates enough, deregulate enough, and grow the economy enough to overcome what was then "only" a $10 Trillion hole. That hole has almost doubled in size in 10 years, and worse, the conditions necessary to start "refilling it" have deteriorated badly since then.
 
And that is why what is coming... is coming. When? When the Federal Reserve begins to lose control of interest rates, that's when you'll know.
 
     

Andy as much as I hate to say it you are wrong on this one my friend. Who owns all those Treasury bonds? The Federal Reserve Banks can go pound sand! Our foreign debt is a pittance compared to what we owe ourselves.

We CAN grow our way out of this but not with the income tax in place. We MUST get rid of that and return to what the founders universally endorsed. Taxes on articles of consumption only! Passing the fairtax into law would unleash this economy like no one alive today has ever seen and instantly repatriate TRILLIONS of dollars currently being held offshore.

[bkepley]

There is no common ground between the state of, say, Massachusetts, and a state like Texas.  An Article 5 convention would be a circus.  The real answer is some states to start ignoring federal laws and court decisons, and to strongly consider secession.

There would certainly be a lot of people trying to turn it into a circus.

[EdinVA]

Well, the politicians will only do what we ask.
We need to change what we ask for.
The author forgot to mention the other factor, our education system.
We are here because our young people have been taught "white privilege", We were wrong to end WWII, the government owes us, military are criminals and the police are to be attacked.
The author and his esteemed colleges are the biggest part of the problem and it will take decades to fix.

[Bigun]

Well, the politicians will only do what we ask.
We need to change what we ask for.
The author forgot to mention the other factor, our education system.
We are here because our young people have been taught "white privilege", We were wrong to end WWII, the government owes us, military are criminals and the police are to be attacked.
The author and his esteemed colleges are the biggest part of the problem and it will take decades to fix.

Absolutely true! ABSOLUTELY! 

[Scottftlc]

Andy as much as I hate to say it you are wrong on this one my friend. Who owns all those Treasury bonds? The Federal Reserve Banks can go pound sand! Our foreign debt is a pittance compared to what we owe ourselves.

We CAN grow our way out of this but not with the income tax in place. We MUST get rid of that and return to what the founders universally endorsed. Taxes on articles of consumption only! Passing the fairtax into law would unleash this economy like no one alive today has ever seen and instantly repatriate TRILLIONS of dollars currently being held offshore.

But the problem remains, the current political system will NEVER enact the Fair Tax.  The media, culture and our political ruling class itself is lined up against it - and will thwart it at every turn if it is attempted within the system.  So first, the governing structure of America must fail utterly or be removed from the outside...which makes the article's point. 

[Bigun]

But the problem remains, the current political system will NEVER enact the Fair Tax.  The media, culture and our political ruling class itself is lined up against it - and will thwart it at every turn if it is attempted within the system.  So first, the governing structure of America must fail utterly or be removed from the outside...which makes the article's point.

Perhaps.  I happen to think otherwise. But one thing is for damned sure! It will never happen until enough of us demand it!

[andy58-in-nh]

Andy as much as I hate to say it you are wrong on this one my friend. Who owns all those Treasury bonds? The Federal Reserve Banks can go pound sand! Our foreign debt is a pittance compared to what we owe ourselves.

We CAN grow our way out of this but not with the income tax in place. We MUST get rid of that and return to what the founders universally endorsed. Taxes on articles of consumption only! Passing the fairtax into law would unleash this economy like no one alive today has ever seen and instantly repatriate TRILLIONS of dollars currently being held offshore.

Look, here's the problem: the Federal Reserve is not "us" - it's not a government entity. It is a private bank empowered by Congress to provide (and withdraw) liquidity to member banks in the system. To greatly simplify here for the sake of time: its Chairman and Board of Governors determine monetary policy, specifically by determining the primary interest rates that FRS member banks charge each other for overnight lending; these rates in turn determine the rates at which both private and sovereign debt securities (bonds) are issued.
 
It used to be that the US Treasury was only the primary issuer of US sovereign debt (which finances US deficit spending). But today, the Fed is also the largest buyer of that debt (often after temporarily "selling" it to dealers who in short order resell it to the Fed (for a fee, of course).
 
The result is that the majority of American debt is owned either by foreign nations like Japan or China - whose sales of the same would cause massive a reduction in the value of the dollar - or by the Fed - which monetizes the debt by simply "digitizing" dollars into existence - i.e. - by effectively printing money directly into the accounts of the largest banks in America. 
 
But little of that money is finding its way into circulation, its velocity held tightly in check by the Fed's own artificial repression of interest rates. This in turn is forcing investors seeking reasonable returns to invest in stocks and real estate - creating bubbles in each. See where this is going? It will not take much in the way of an "unexpected" event to create a cascading crisis in the capital markets... leading to capital flight to more secure currencies, followed by deflation, then by massive layoffs in an economy where good-paying jobs are already scarce and disposable income has declined, but where personal indebtedness and dependency have expanded rapidly.
 
Suddenly, tax receipts can no longer mask increased Federal spending. The deficit explodes, just as demands for ever more "emergency" spending hit Congress. The stock market goes into a tailspin. Banks are faced with severe liquidity problems as investors begin withdrawing the money they have left. ATM's begin to run out of money. Legions of professional agitators and protestors mass in the streets, in increasingly violent clashes with police and National Guard troops.
 
Sound like Greece? Greece was just the beginning. This is a global economic problem because everything I described above about the Federal reserve also applies to the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan and other Masters of the Universe central planners who are slowly losing control of their respective economies.   
 
And sadly, there is nothing that we can now do to prevent the Great Reset that is coming.  Even if we were to do the politically impossible and implement a flat or consumption tax, freeze Federal spending (forget about any rollback) at current levels, repeal the Obamacare mandates, approve the Keystone pipeline, abolish the IRS, encourage productive people to start marrying and having babies, somehow achieve 10% annual GDP growth for 20 years... it wouldn't matter.... the math, at all levels, is impossible. I'm sorry to say it, but it has to blow up. Only then can we pick up the rubble and start to rebuild. But there will be rubble, and lots of it.