Tag Archives | Scott Brown

Scott Brown’s Scorecard: 0 for 1.

By on February 23, 2010 in Constitution, Delegated Powers

Off to an unconstitutional start. Not surprising, but I wonder how commonplace this is going to be for the new “maverick” in the Senate.

A modest job-creation bill advanced in the U.S. Senate on Monday as the chamber’s newest Republican bucked his party and sided with Democrats on a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending.

Republican Scott Brown joined four other Republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents to overcome a procedural hurdle that sets up a final vote later this week.

The question is this – Mr Brown, where in the Constitution does the federal government get the authority to legislate “job creation” – even modestly?

Hint. It doesn’t.

Comments { 3 }

The Bread and Circus of Federal Elections

By on January 29, 2010 in Elections, Republocrats

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that no aspect of our public or private lives is exempted from federal regulation, and that state sovereignty is an outdated historical irrelevancy.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

Comments { 1 }

Obama is not lying, but he thinks he is.

By on January 26, 2010 in Big Government, The Opposition

All the pundits are blasting Obama for his comments this week declaring similarities between the momentum that brought him the Presidency and the momentum that brought Scott Brown to the Senate.

Obama said: “Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Well, for once, I agree with the President. He may not know it, but for now he’s on to something. The similarities are significant, but not for the reasons Obama would have you believe. Obama is implicitly declaring that the “thing” that swept them into office was a massive mandate to centralize power at the federal level, or in Brown’s case public dissatisfaction with the rate at with Obama was able to centralize power. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the “thing” that swept both into office was absolute disgust with Washington DC.

The centralization of power is the problem.

Both elections prove it. Obama won the election because he was “not Bush”. Brown won the election because he was “not Obama”. Both won the election because they were not “Washington DC”. Well, now they are both Washington DC, so who will the people send next to solve the problems sure to be endorsed by these champions. In other words, the game continues until “we the people” tell Washington to take a hike, we can solve our problems locally.

This battle is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It’s not even about left ideology versus right ideology. The battle is much more serious. It is about “we the people” versus an out of control federal government. Or more to the point, decentralized power versus centralized power.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Comments { 4 }