Why I'm "wasting" my vote
by Larry Elder
For All of US
source:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder1.asp
Nov. 2, 2000
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution)connected with them. To take them in a literal & unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, said this to explain the so-called "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. Today both parties ignore the original intention of the general welfare clause. And this is precisely why I cannot vote for either party.
Madison & the Founding Fathers envisioned a limited government, along the lines of Henry David Thoreau, who said, "That government is best which governs least."
Think about it. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution allowed unlimited federal powers, why bother with Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the specific powers and duties of the federal government? The Founding Fathers left to the states all responsibilities not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
This means the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Constitution when it initially rejected much of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's so-called "New Deal."
This means the Supreme Court correctly rejected Congress's first attempt to pass an income tax, ruling that this, too, violated the Constitution.
Think about the concept of Social Security. The government, determining its citizens too irresponsible to plan for the future, takes part of a worker's paycheck. Then, when that worker retires, the goverrnment "returns" the money, but at a paltry rate of interest.
Remember when President Clinton said of the budget "surplus," "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen."
In Philadelphia at the Republican National Convention, Republican candidate George W. Bush declared that the federal government should take no more than a third of one's income. A third! How about zero?
Read the Constitution. The Founding Fathers allowed duties & tariffs to fund the limited obligations of the federal government.
The Soviet Union collapsed under 100 percent socialism. But, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs, government pays roughly 50 percent of our health-care tab. In 1965, Congress passed the Medicare Act. In the 20 years before the Act, a one-day stay in the hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following the passage of the Medicare Act, a one-day stay in a hospital increased eightfold. Full socialism doesn't work, nor does semi-socialism. Government involvement in health care increases the prices, decreases innovation, & diminishes accessibility.
What about government welfare for the poor and the needy? Economist & JewishWorldReview.com columnist Thomas Sowell estimates that bureaucratic red tape and costs burn up 70 cents for every dollar intended for the poor & needy. Contrast this with organizations like the United Way & the Salvation Army, where over 85 percent of the donated dollar gets down to the intended beneficiaries.
Did the Founding Fathers envision an intrusive, heavy-handed Internal Revenue Service that collects a disproportionate percentage of taxes from "the wealthy," often the hardest-working & most innovative of Americans?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a Congress that pays farmers not to grow crops?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a government-operated Amtrak, run less efficiently than private sector rail companies?
Did the Founding Fathers envision taxpayer funding of sports stadiums & arenas?
Did the Founding Fathers envision Congress, through the use of the interstate commerce laws, deciding to pass laws mandating minimum wages, or dictating work rules from the Potomac?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a Department of Education attaching strings to federal funds earmarked for education, a function that should be local in nature?
Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal erosion of the Second Amendment, a provision providing a right to keep & bear arms?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a federal government that hires teachers & police officers, a function the Founding Fathers expected local authorities to handle?
Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal government to answer questions such as abortion or school prayer, given Thomas Jefferson's declaration of a wall separating church and state?
Richard Nixon said that, to capture the presidency, a Republican candidate runs to the right in the primaries, and then to the center in a general election. But "the center," misled by a "distribute-the-wealth" media, misunderstands Economics 101 & the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
I intend to vote for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. Many say I waste my vote. You've heard the argument -- vote the lesser of two evils. But at his brother Robert's funeral, Ted Kennedy quoted his late brother: "Some men see things as they are & say why. I dream things that never were, & say why not."
I say "why not."
JWR contributor Larry Elder is the author of the newly released book The Ten Things You Can't Say in America.
The Ten Things You Can't Say in America
by Larry Elder
When Larry Elder talks, sparks fly, and he likes it that way. Fans of the radio talk-show host from Los Angeles, who call themselves Elderados, have dubbed him "the sage from South Central." His critics--and there are many--use names that range from Oreo to the Antichrist. What's it all about? Elder, a libertarian, lays down his controversial views in his first book, which attacks the politically correct, black leaders, feminists, gun-control advocates, and other "so-called liberals." Some of the 10 things you can't say in America include "Blacks are more racist than whites," "There's only a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats," "The media bias is real, widespread and destructive," and "America's greatest problem is illegitimacy." Elder aims to change the way blacks look at their future, demanding that they take responsibility for their lives, stop blaming all their problems on racism, and pay attention to the progress they've made. While there may be some truth in what he says and even some good news (for instance, the self-esteem of black children is equal to or better than that of whites), this isn't exactly a pep talk. Not surprisingly, his all-out attack on black leaders (whom he calls nutcases and hysterical) and white liberals has engendered a fair amount of hostility. With this kind of dialogue, it's hard to believe Elder's going to win too many converts. But for those who appreciate his views, or are curious about them, this book is a provocative and lively ride into the mind of one of the nation's most outspoken black libertarians. --Lesley Reed
Book Description
From Rush Limbaugh to Howard Stern, America tunes in to its radio hosts both on the air and between covers, accepting them as truth-tellers without agendas, the perfect gadflies for the age of too much information. In an era where everyone seems bought and paid for, they cut through it all to tell it like it is. For Fall 2000--just in time to enter the fray for the presidential election season-St. Martin's is happy to present the most unfettered voice of all, Larry Elder.
All Common Law Rights are reserved explicitly without prejudice
UCC 1-103, 1-105, 1-207.
"NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER"
I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! Let me make that perfectly plain, clear and mutually agreed, that, and I repeat, I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! This is my private opinion; I am only sharing information! Notice to agent is notice to principle and notice to principle is notice to agent. For those who would violate my privacy by intercepting this private communication, I fully reserve all of my absolute (sovereign) natural (natural by law) "creator endowed" inherent Rights! I also choose to exercise my Right of remedy In the event that any party attempts to use this writing in any proceeding of any kind! I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information! I could be wrong about all of it! Hereinafter "disclaimer". From now on until further notice the "disclaimer" is presumed in any further private or personal or public or official communication from me to you. "Disclaimer"
This letter open to suggestions, improvements, and comments.
Questions and Comments: Email Katman
