Or the change? Maybe Apple needs to develop an iGovernment app. Couldn’t be worse than Congress, could it?
Category: Government
Debt Ceiling Negotiations
The big problem, as best I can see, is that the President and the Democrats are acting like they didn’t lose the 2010 midterms big time, and the Republicans are acting like they won the Senate and the White House. There are two fundamental truths here, that is the debt ceiling needs to be raised, and to accomplish that, there’s going to need to be compromise. There was no universe where the GOP taking the House in 2010 was going to eliminate the deficit. Those cuts will need to happen over a period of years, and it’ll require a GOP Senate, and a responsible adult in the White House. Note I don’t say Republican in the White House. We tried that formula for six years, and it only resulted in spending that was only mostly out of control, rather than spending that was completely out of control.
Fast and Furious Hearings
First from local Congressman, and former US Attorney Pat Meehan:
Meehan represents the Congressional district I grew up in. Also see this clip from Congressman Jason Chaffetz from Utah:
Dave Hardy is reporting the press is finally starting to really pay attention, and points to all the articles appearing about the scandal. I have to hand to Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea, who stuck on this story when a lot of folks, including me, were skeptical, and were reporting on this long before the media had a peep to say about it. Despite whatever differences I may have with them, I feel they deserve some recognition for top notch citizen journalism.
Fast and Furious Hearings
John Richardson is doing a pretty good job of covering the developments, including testimony of ATF attache to Mexico Darren Gil that they were in the dark in regards to this operation. If you want to watch live, follow this link.
Ten Year Felony? Slap on the Wrist!
As Dave Hardy notes, the WaPo has finally gotten around to acknowledging Fast and Furious as an actual scandal, but naturally their star anti-gun reporter Sari Horwitz, can’t do it without a healthy dose of deception and apologism:
Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called “toothless†laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can’t legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations. Even people convicted of buying AK-47s meant for the cartels typically just get probation for lying on a federal form attesting that they were buying the guns for themselves. With such a light penalty, it is hard to persuade those caught to turn informant against their bosses. And federal prosecutors rarely want to bring such charges because they do not consider the effort worth their time, according to ATF supervisors.
In what world is a ten year mandatory prison sentence and a quarter of a million dollar fine “toothless?” That’s up there with armed robbery. It took me three minutes to look that up and double check my facts just to be sure. I’m not at all convinced it would be that hard for Ms. Horwitz. I can only assume the reason she’s reporting untruths is because the truth doesn’t fit the narrative, which is the need for more laws.
And this is unfortunate, because the rest of it this lengthy article otherwise pretty good.
ATF, FBI Sold Guns to Felons
Howard Nemerov points to evidence that shows ATF and FBI collaborated to sell guns to people who were convicted felons, who otherwise could not pass a NICS check:
When asked about the breakdown, Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the NICS System, said the FBI had no comment. However, an ATF agent who worked on the Fast and Furious investigation, told Fox News that NICS officials called the ATF in Phoenix whenever their suspects tried to buy a gun. That conversation typically led to a green light for the buyers, when it should have stopped them.
I don’t think I really care whether or not Holder says he didn’t know about it. This happened on his watch and he should step down. This operation is looking more and more reckless and illegal every day.
Law Dog on Canton Video
No More TSA Nude-O-Scope
Apparently a software upgrade is taking care of the issue:
After complaints from travelers the TSA earlier this year began testing at four airports software for the full-body scanners that instead uses a generic body outline and highlights the area where any anomaly is detected, eliminating the actual image of the passenger.
This deals with my primary concern about these things. I’d also want to know that there’s no way an agent can pull up the image, and that the image is not stored. I don’t really give a crap if a computer analyses an image of me. Now the only concern is the long-term effects of the radiation.
Someone should probably FOIA specs for this software upgrade to ensure everything is as advertised. You know, someone like the media, who’s supposed to hold the Government accountable. Or something like that. Hard to say that with a straight face these days.
Baloney Maloney
Rep. Maloney said, “No, I do not. Operation Fast and Furious is under investigation and we’ve had one hearing on it. We intend to have more and more investigations, more interviews and we will go where it takes us.â€
“Right now, we heard about these loopholes in the law – law enforcement asked for greater tools so that they could get convictions and try to stop the flow of illegal guns and that’s where we are now,†she said.  “So we will continue our investigation.â€
I almost feel like these players had this all scripted, and faced with mistakes and blunders early on in the filming, and trying to proceed with the agreed upon script as best as they can. They just don’t know what else to do, so what do they do? Keep rolling. Keep talking about loopholes. The only loophole here is that people are going to be allowed to get away with this without going to jail.
Political Systems
Joe had a bit more to say yesterday about my post regarding the land of the used to be free:
The bigger problem, as Sebastian pointed out, is the erosion without consequences. In general the only way this problem can be fixed is for there to be consequences other than voter wrath. There needs to be fines and/or jail time for those that violate our rights and some body, such as the courts but perhaps not, that is specifically tasked with doing nothing but striking down laws that exceed the constitutional authority given to the legislature and/or executive branch.
I’ve heard it proposed that we should pass a constitutional amendment that creates a House of Repeal. Essentially a body who’s only job is to repeal bad laws. I’m intrigued by this idea because it provides the right kind of incentive. The great thing about our political system, in historical context, is that we are a nation of laws, rather than of men. The great problem that creates, perhaps not fully envisioned by the founders, is the same as when the only tool available to a carpenter is a hammer; suddenly everything starts looking like a nail. In an ideal world, a House of Repeal would be unnecessary if the Courts were willing to do their jobs. Having sacrificed that responsibility on the altar of the presumption of constitutionality a number of years ago, I’m not sure the Courts are any longer enough.
But would a House of Repeal really help? I’ve also wondered, rather than a House of Repeal, if it would be better to have two Supreme Courts: one Supreme Judicial Court, and one Supreme Constitutional Court, with the Supreme Constitutional Court having jurisdiction only over constitutional matters. In a departure from traditional common law, the SCC would have the ability to review legislation without the need for citizens to bring suit, or to have standing to sue. In essence, all three branches of government would have to agree on the constitutionality of a law for it to be in full effect.
As for consequences for bad behavior, I agree with Joe on that as well. I’ve pondered the utility of a provision that states if an Act of Congress is found to be unconstitutional, anyone sitting in the Congress, having voted in the affirmative for said Act, is permanently ineligible from sitting in Congress for another term. How’s that for term limits? The threat of jail time doesn’t seem to put many elected officials off from current examples of malfeasance, but every office holder out there is scared to death of losing their seat, ending up out of power and irrelevant. This kind of consequence would both provide punishment, and remove the possibility of further damage.
Another possible path to get out of the mess we are in is for the Federal government to go bankrupt and collapse sort of like the USSR did and we end up with only state governments. Many of those state governments would provide a much more free environment than that currently imposed by the Feds.
For a lot of reasons, I think this would be disastrous, chief among the reasons being that we’re sitting on some highly valuable real-estate that other powers would very much like to have. We’re a lot weaker divided. New York City wouldn’t stay free for long without southern country boys willing to defend it with their lives, and southern country boys would find it difficult to maintain 21st Century standards of living without the financial services provided by New Yorkers. Both would starve to death without midwestern farmers, and the midwest is awfully cold in the winter without coal from the West, and oil from Alaska and Texas. That’s not even mentioning monetary issues, like who can issue currency, who is responsible for the debt of the Untied States, etc. Businesses would be petrified while the political system worked out the separation of states. This would mean economic ruin, or economic ruin would already have needed to happen. It would be less of a disaster, in this case, to have another constitutional convention, and amend the constitution to place more firm and unambiguous limitations on federal power.
Joe also suggests that maybe we just need to go elsewhere. There are theories out there that postulate that the option of exit is one major factor that kept our early governments relatively small. Given that we’ve hit ocean, it’s no longer an option. Perhaps people need that option in order not to have their productivity preyed on by others. I don’t have any solutions for that problem.
I don’t think our founders got everything right. Their system was a wonderful example of how to control a government that presided over a largely agrarian society, and with assertive and diverse state governments. That does not accurately describe our society today. I don’t think we should rule out the possibility of making amendments to the Constitution. The progressives did it when they ushered in their era in the early part of the 20th Century, which later laid the foundation for the New Deal. Those of us who wish to see a better federal system, with a more passive and less assertive central government, should not shy away from such ideas.