If the Federal Government does not do it, who Will?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government has very few powers delegated to it. Meanwhile, the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights delegates powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states and the citizens. James Madison eloquently noted that "ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity." (Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788). Madison would be shocked to see the state of affairs our nation is in today.

The brilliance of those who founded this Republic was obvious. They gave the national government very limited powers and gave the power to do virtually anything they desired to the states. They did this knowing that, if an individual state exercised too much control — taxes too high, regulations too oppressive — people would be free to leave to find a place with more liberties. This freedom to "vote with their feet" would keep the state governments in check and give the American people the ability to find the type of government that met their needs.

In addition, giving states such enormous powers would lead to a competitive environment in developing the best approaches to solve policy problems. Instead of the national government making the foolish mistake of trying to solve a major national problem and creating an environment where it is too costly for the states to develop innovation, the founders intended for each state to solve problems through competition and the best innovations would eventually rise to the surface. Virtually all states use the same standard procedures in a plethora of areas. They were developed by witnessing the work of other states, not through the coercion of the federal government.

The founders of this country understood that the federal government was no place to address policies like health care because the issues surrounding it would be too complicated and the costs too high. They delegated that to the states and, over time, the innovators would eventually rise to the top. To date, the states have had no success in solving the health care situation, so it is laughable that the federal government would try to replicate failed policies in Massachusetts on a national level. Remember, the federal system our republic is built on intended for issues like this to be addressed exclusively by the states and not the federal government. Without exception, states like California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii have attempted major healch care programs and they have all been complete failures. Hawaii's socialized health care program almost put the entire state into bankruptcy and had to be discontinued in seven months.

The states are the best place for solving policy problems. They have limited amount of dollars because they do not have the power to print currency (meanwhile, the federal government had that power but few others and few reasons to print its "funny money"). This would make a certain level of frugality essential in solving policy problems. Furthermore, having problems solved on a state level allows the mistakes in the problem of doing such isolated, rather than becoming a national disaster. Again, those who created our Republic were brilliant and we need their wisdom now more than ever.

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.

Federalist No. 10

Few people have read the Constitution and fewer still have read the documents designed to make the case for it. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay worked passionately to make the case for the states to ratify the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers were 85 essays (which were first written as articles and circulated as pamphlets and as articles in newspapers through out the states and they elaborated on the principles of the Constitution) and are considered a primary source for understanding the founding document.

The Founders called on three of the most powerful minds in government at the time to make the case for the new government. Alexander Hamilton, who would go on to become the first Secretary of the Treasury, was an advocate of a strong, but limited government. John Jay, who would go on to become the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court was like Hamilton in his convictions. Finally, there was James Madison, who was known as the Father of the Constitution since he scribed virtually every word of the proceedings leading to the founding document. It is Madison's Federalist Number 10 that I consider my favorite of these articles. The article first appeared in November 1787.

The consensus in American politics in these early years was decidedly anti-partisan. In this essay, Madison makes a remarkable case for this country to choose a uniquely American way of governing. I suggest reading the entire document, because of its powerful arguments and a message so alien from modern American politics today.

Madison argues that "The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected." "Popular governments" were, in a word, democracies. This document is a great warning to the people of France at that time who were about to break out in a revolution of their own. Where as the US Revolution was based on responsible freedom, limited government, and symbolized by the Liberty Bell. The French Revolution was known for its factions, revenge, and symbolized by the guillotine.

Madison goes on to point out that "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." In other words, Madison argues that you cannot accommodate the views of the majority without oppressing everyone who disagrees with that popular decision. Totalitarian regimes have no functional factions, because those who would disagree with the government are simply oppressed. On the other hand, if mobs rule, we are oppressed by majorities. Madison, argued that such is just another form of tyranny. He also argued for a third way, he believed that one of the virtues of the Constitution is that the federal government would be so limited in power, these type of battles should be fought in the states. If people were truly passionate about a certain issue, they could move their battle to a state that reflected their values. With a strict republic based on rule by law and limits on the federal governments, individuals would be able to enjoy a high level of freedom on a state and local level. This would not only make our nation more prosperous and financially sound, but also free. It is one more case for restoring the much neglected Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

"Gradualism" works Better for Socialism than Freedom

The United States today is a mere shadow of the once free republic that was known as a beacon of freedom through out the work and economic power house that was without comparison. This happened because our federal government deferred to the states and the citizens on the vast majority of decisions that had to be made. We seem to have a very different country today.

Much of the world is rapidly moving away from command economies while the US pursues such at a now rapid pace. This didn't happen over night, but has happened gradually over many generations. Frankly, the US of 50 years ago was not as free as it was a century before; the "good old days" are becoming a distant memory. From the early days of the republic until the early 20th century, state and even local government officials had more real power than those who held most federal offices. Those in Congress -- and the White House -- had their hands tied by a constitution that put firm limits on them.

We can look at historic Supreme Court decisions and even major events (like some of the effects of the Civil War) and see the power shift from a federalist system with sovereign states to the strong national government system we are experiencing today. The court decisions were driven by policies that were designed to make the federal government stronger. These policies included a redefining of welfare (which historically meant had to be beneficial to everyone or was not welfare), how people were taxed, the expansion of regulation, and much more. There was not a massive change over night, but the change has indeed been huge.

These changes happened because people want more things (or money) paid for by others. The late Russell B. Long may have put it best, stating "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree." People want "free" schools, unemployment benefits, subsidy programs, etc., as long as they don't have to pay for them. This natural inclination makes it easy for government to expand. This isn't the case with reducing the size of government. Cutting a program even slightly is seen as Draconian -- even cruel. This is logical, if a benefit or program is justified at all, shouldn't it be justified in abundance? This goes back to the federal system that we were talking about earlier. This is why the Founding Fathers so greatly limited the government’s activities to around 17 items in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The only answer to our current situation is to challenge those who want government to grow at a slower speed (the vast majority of Republicans it appears), to begin to demand that those who take the oath of office take it seriously (regardless of how odd their platform seems compared to the many politicians who have trampled over this oath), and to begin using the language of "restoration" and not conservatism. What is there, after all, left to conserve? Bloated budgets, the decline of freedom, and the confiscation of wealth? Conservatism now means only slowing down our trek down the "road to serfdom." We should instead pursue a different path.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.