Navigation

Author Archive | Tony Farruggio

The Bread and Circus of Federal Elections

By on January 29, 2010 in Elections, Republocrats 1

Scott Brown’s victory inspires confidence that no campaign is hopeless for a candidate willing to take a principled stand, maintain a simple and direct message, and reject the preconceptions of conventional wisdom.

Such inspiration matters to those of us who struggle against the preconceptions that the Constitution doesn’t mean what the words of the document clearly state, that no aspect of our public or private lives is exempted from federal regulation, and that state sovereignty is an outdated historical irrelevancy.

Amid all of this electoral euphoria, however, tenth amendment supporters should be careful not to assume that changing faces in Washington will secure our constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty.

Much as he or she might agree with the principles articulated in the tenth amendment, there is little incentive for a senator or congressman in Washington to support policies that restrain federal over-governance. Quite the contrary, there are tremendous pressures for each legislator to fight for his or her state’s place at the federal trough, delivering the goods by “bringing home the bacon”.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Continue Reading 1

California Dreamin’ (on someone else’s dime)

By on January 13, 2010 in Big Government 2
Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

This past Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for the federal government to bail out the taxpayers of his state to the tune of some $6.9 billion. The request comes amid efforts to close a $19.9 billion gap in his proposed $82.9 billion 2010-2011 fiscal budget. We hear daily news stories of governors all over the United States struggling to close similar gaping holes in their states’ budgets. By what rationale is California more deserving than others? Schwarzenegger argues his case on two fronts. First, he points out that Californians pay far more in federal taxes than they ever receive in federal disbursements. Second, he suggests that the burden of complying with unfunded federal mandates is one of the chief culprits bankrupting his state. Let’s take each of these arguments in turn.

Schwarzenegger suggests that there should be some measure of parity between the amount that Californians pay to support the federal government and the quantity of services or federal funding they receive in return. He might have a legitimate complaint on this score, if only we were still governed by the same constitutional provisions written in 1787 and ratified in 1791. The Founders understood, and concurred with Schwarzenegger, that the several independent, sovereign states should not be disproportionately burdened with the responsibility of funding the operation of the federal government. To protect against this, the apportionment clause (Article I, Section 2) was written to ensure that each state share the responsibility of providing for those federal activities enumerated in the Constitution, in direct proportion to the number of citizens residing in each state.

It is gratifying to see Schwarzenegger arrive at the Founders’ view of budgetary fairness some 219 years after the fact, but his argument comes 108 years too late.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Continue Reading 2