Fakes, Charlatans, and Moderates, Oh My!

Funny isn’t it? As the states rights debate gains more attention, the room gets too crowded for the actual Tenther viewpoint. Take for instance “Meddling for Morality: Republicans are for states’ rights – when it suits them,” a column in The Economist.

The writer largely gives Democrats a break but does mention them in the second to last paragraph (within parentheses). Credit is always due to mainstreamers who nail the GOP on its selectivity about where to draw the line between state and federal power. Nullifying ObamaCare is popular while simultaneously abortion restrictions ought to be legislated from D.C. say the phony conservatives, but couldn’t the author have gone a bit further?

Trevor Lyman of the Liberty Crier took The Economist to task for failing to mention Democrats as equally guilty for paying lip service to great nationalism while 17 states are actively disobeying Supreme Court medical marijuana proclamations. But there is something more sinister, something more deeply flawed in The Economist columnist’s approach.

Details

Why not Centralize?

Why not centralize power?

Why not simply do away with state governments completely? Disband our city councils? Dissolve our county commissions?

Placing all authority in the federal government would certainly prove more efficient. It would eliminate confusion and erase competing jurisdictions. It would allow the politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. to “get things done” without resistance or interference from “lesser” bodies. We could have uniform laws and regulations across the country.

But even the most ardent supporters of federal power don’t take things that far. I’ve yet to hear the cry “Dissolve the states!”

Why not?

Perhaps the DC’vers secretly desire that end, but they don’t say it in public. Why?  I think because  most Americans still balk at centralizing power – at least to that extent. They intuitively recognize the inherent danger in vesting that much authority in a single body with no check on its power. Americans distrust monopoly, and most, at least if they really  stop and think about it,  know that empowering the government to “do good” also empowers it to “do evil.”

Details

Romney Runs from Spending Cuts

According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney supports postponing the sequestration cuts scheduled for January 2, 2013 by at least one year:

The Republican presidential contender said Friday during a campaign trip to Las Vegas that the cuts would be “terrible,” particularly for the military.

Congress approved the cuts as part of a deal to reduce the deficit. They were designed to help lawmakers come up with a better plan. But that didn’t happen — so the cuts are scheduled to go into effect next year.

Romney says he wants President Barack Obama and lawmakers to work together to put, in his words, “a year’s runway,” in place to give the next president time to reform the tax system and ensure the military’s needs are met.

In other words, Romney’s position on sequestration is no different than the rest of the spendthrifts in Washington.

Romney’s punt coincides with the enactment of legislation that requires the White House to detail precisely what it would cut in January. The Office of Management and Budget has 30 days to release the report. The idea originated with congressional Republicans who relish the opportunity to get the president on record for proposing cuts to military spending. Democrats went along after the bill was changed to include provisions that force the White House to spell out cuts to domestic programs. The goal for both parties is to get the various special interests and their accomplices in the media to go bonkers when the report is released.

Details