Finally, Someone is Discussing the Constitution

The term "crisis" is thrown around rather liberally today, but there should be no question that our nation is in a desperate situation today. Our problem is not merely fiscal, but political and cultural. Our deficits and growing debt are driven by a government that is no longer constrained by the rule of law.

Generally speaking, most politicians are on the bandwagon of supporting an increase in government power and spending. On the political left, the argument is that the government's spending should be unchecked, it is the people and business that needs to be watched. For the vast majority of those on the right in Congress, the answer is a sad response of "yes, government can spend where it wants... the only question is how much." They fight back with pleas of, "this amount of spending may be dangerous," when they should be declaring that we are committing economic and political crimes.

On the political landscape today, it is hard to find members of Congress who are willing to speak with honesty about the direction our nation is going, one of the few exceptions is Ted Poe of Texas. Poe has been a frequent guest on my radio show and he voted against bailouts and TARP even when the conventional wisdom was that they were necessary. Recently, he has become aggressive in his disdain for a government that is out of control.

Congressman Poe has introduced House Resolution 959 which expresses the sense that many member of Congress "challenge the authority of the federal government to require by law that Americans purchase health insurance, or any goods or services." Substantively, bills like this have little importance. If a majority pass it, there will be no actual change in the law. However, there has been little discussion of all on what the limits of government are, so I find this action very refreshing.

Congressman Poe notes that "Any bill that requires Americans to buy something under the guise of a tax or pay a fine, violates House procedural rules. This legislation is based on the premise that such a bill is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative taxing authority. Thus any such bills brought to the floor would be ruled out of order."

There is a growing movement towards the restoration of the federal system established by the Founding Fathers and it is based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The Congressman goes on to describe the direction this nation is drifting towards: "It is a very slippery slope to allow Congress to expand this authority for the purpose of forcing American citizens to buy health insurance or anything else," Congressman Poe continued. "We must heed the confines of our Constitution, not ignore it in a mad rush to expand the federal government or reinterpret its meaning to serve a political purpose."

I, for one, am only interested in supporting candidates of Congress who share a similar view. The Constitution is the law of the land and every member who swears to defend it should be bound to that reasonable standard.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Green Case for Domestic Drilling

Recently Republicans in Congress have done an excellent job of making the economic efficiency and national security arguments for increased domestic drilling. Democrats attempts to blame the speculators, "make sure the tires are filled," and calls to drill where the energy industry already has leases is falling upon deaf ears. Voters seem to know that those acres have been so thoroughly exploited that the translated cost per gallon to explore them will be higher than current prices. The industry needs access to new locations and it is pounding that drum effectively.

The current Republicans in the House are occupying empty Chambers and are demanding Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call Congress back and to tackle the energy crisis. Pelosi is invulnerable in her reelection efforts and has told other Democrats to make her the "fall guy" for failing to take action on energy. Republicans, like Congressman Kevin Brady of the Woodlands (Texas) and Ted Poe (of Houston) and others are reminding their colleagues that there already was an up and down vote on whether the Congress should immediately pursue an energy policy instead of taking a vacation. That was their vote for adjournment. If you voted for adjournment (which passed by only one vote), you voted against Congress immediately dealing with energy. If you voted against adjournment, you voted for Congressional action. That message may be getting through to voters and Republicans are beginning to look like that brash group that took over the Congress back in 1994.

The economic case for increased domestic drilling is simple. It will quickly lower gas prices by increasing future supplies. What most Democrats fail to realize is that the threat of increased production can lower prices. A thorough debate on the subject in the last few weeks has already lowered the price per barrel to around $116 at this writing, from being around $150. This is without a vote and without new exploration. This is merely due to rhetoric. Imgaine the impact once we increased drilling. Our current prices are based on futures. With the Republicans winning the recent debate, the future looks brighter for oil supplies and we are seeing it at the gas pumps.

The national security argument is just a logical. Many Democrats are arguing for tapping into the Strategic Reserve in order to help lower prices. This has only served as a reminder to voters of how dependent we are on foreign oil. In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today it is nearly 70 percent and that number continues to grow. If foreign countries decided to stop supplying us, we would be in a true crisis. Security, as well as prosperity, are wrapped up in our energy future.

Republicans now need to make the moral case. Increased domestic drilling is the green thing to do. For years we have been told by environmentalists that this planet is little more than a "big blue marble." Simply put, environmental disasters on any part of the planet has an adverse impact on the entire planet. If that is the case, who better than the United States to increase drilling? Right now, Cuba and Venezuela are eyeing off shore drilling opportunities near the United States. Do we prefer their technology, safety standards, and labor over that of the US? Any time the United States can take the lead on drilling; people, animals, and prestine environments are better protected compared to the means of any other country.

I have suggested this to Members of Congress and others for quite some time and it seems the argument is beginning to have some traction. I visited with Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) about this last week and he has assured me that it will become an important argument Republicans will use as the GOP continues to take over the empty House Chamber. All I can say is it is about time. With the moral case joining the economic and national security arguments, the Democrats could find their hopes for the 2008 elections running out of gas.