Response to a Regulator

(This is my response to a letter to the Editor criticizing my view of government regulations)

 

 

 

        I am grateful for Nancy Theodore’s lucid explanation of Washington’s rule-making process outlined in her October 22^nd letter to the editor.  She obviously knows a lot about that, having spent 31 years writing regulations and policy for the federal government. 

          That’s the difference between her and me: she sees everything from inside the Beltway where over 2,700,000 federal employees insulated from the real world collectively think they know how Americans should lead their lives.  Of course some of the rules and regulations are good and necessary.  But, it’s not the legitimacy of the process that Ms. Theodore praises that I question so much as its excesses.  Contrary to Ms. Theodore’s assertion, this is not the system the framers of our Constitution had in mind.  But there’s more.
          When Ms. Theodore in an earlier letter defended President Obama’s executive orders by pointing out that President Bush had issued far more, she missed the point entirely by ignoring the scope and import of Obama’s orders.  When the president refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, re-writes legislation that he had already signed into law, and threatens to by-pass Congress to advance his agenda, he crosses constitutional lines.  That, Ms. Theodore, is indefensible.
          Is it any wonder that America’s trust in government is at an all-time low?  Ronald Reagan had it right when he said, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government IS the problem.”

Corruption -- A Family Affair

          “Not a smidgen of corruption.”  These famous words uttered by President Obama in a Super Bowl half-time interview in answer to a question about the IRS have haunted the president as the facts have proven otherwise. 

          Is corruption endemic to politics?  How many mayors, congressmen, and governors have to go to jail before there is any doubt that power corrupts?

          Bill Clinton was perhaps the most disgraced president ever.  A serial abuser of women, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, although not a single Democrat voted for conviction.  One of his final acts as president was to pardon Marc Rich, a crook who was indicted on 65 criminal charges and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution in the biggest tax evasion case in history.  The pardon was given in gratitude for generous political contributions from Rich’s wife.  Yet, Democrats treat this morally corrupt man as an idol.

          Without any embarrassment whatsoever, NBC News gave Chelsea Clinton a $600,000 a year job as a journalism correspondent, without her having any journalism experience at all.  According to one sardonic source, she was “never NBC’s most prolific correspondent, nor its most widely praised.”  Chelsea quit the job to have a baby, but she won’t be hurting for money; her millionaire husband is Mark Mezvinsky, who just happens to be the son of Edward Mezvinsky, a former two-term congressman from Iowa who spent five years in jail after pleading guilty for cheating investors out of $10 million.  Corruption, it seems, is a family affair.
          And now, Vice-President Joe Biden must be wondering why the spotlight is suddenly on him.  A former Chief of Staff of his, Ron Klain, a political hack with no medical experience, has just been appointed to the newly minted position of Ebola Czar.  Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, the vice-president’s youngest son has been booted out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine use.  We can’t blame Joe for that, but there is a question about how Hunter Biden became a naval officer in the first place.  It seems he got two waivers.  One was a direct commission, which waives the usual requirements (Naval Academy, ROTC, or Officers’ Candidate School).  The other waived a youthful drug incident that would have barred the door to an ordinary mortal.  Would Hunter Biden have been commissioned if he had not been the son of the Vice-President?  Welcome to the family.

The Framers Got It Right

          In the October 8^th edition of the Perquimans Weekly, a lady named Nancy Theodore took me to task on my understanding of how the federal government works with respect to administrative agencies.  She even asked where I get my information.  Here's my answer.

          My primary source of information is the Constitution, which states explicitly that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”  The Framers meant the emphasis to be on the word “All” precisely to prevent the kind of problems that had arisen in English constitutional history when monarchs circumvented Parliament by issuing binding proclamations.   These proclamations were an exercise in absolute power, and our founders were dead set against any sort of absolutism.  After all, they had just fought a war to free us from England’s absolute rule.
          Unfortunately, the rise of Progressivism in the United States in the 20^th century has moved us in the wrong direction.  Briefly, progressives are unhappy with the separation of powers; they prefer the consolidation of the three powers of government—legal, executive, and judicial--in administrative agencies under the direction of a central authority, the president.  While they claim that this is a pragmatic and necessary development, the fact remains that it is unconstitutional. 
          Contrary to Ms. Theodore’s belief, the Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate its legislative powers to administrative agencies.  When I say that Congress is powerless to stop these agencies from issuing extra-legal regulations, it is because a bitterly divided Congress, such as the one we have now, is ineffective in protecting its constitutionally mandated authority; as we have seen, it has not been able to prevent the EPA from piling on regulations that have the force of law, or to stop HHS from changing provisions of the Affordable Care Act, something it has done more than two dozen times.  Interestingly, when this Administration has gone to court to defend its circumvention of Congress, for example in its recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, it has lost.
          I do understand how government works and, more importantly, how it should work.  With constitutional powers increasingly devolving to administrative agencies, I’m afraid our government resembles less and less what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind.  

Politicized Justice

          On October 3^rd Thomas Sowell wrote, “The erosion of Constitutional government over the years has become, under the Obama administration, a deluge of arbitrary edicts and defiant lawlessness protected by a grossly politicized Department of Justice.”

          Now if I had written that, I’d be instantly accused of racism by my critics.  But Sowell has long been one of the most astute and respected commentators on the national scene and can hardly be accused of racism, since he happens to be black.  Sowell’s point here, however, is not about racism, but about candidate Obama’s promise to fundamentally change the nature of this country.  The president has delivered on that promise with multiple violations of his oath of office and by politicizing every aspect of government under his control.  And he has done it with the collusion of his Attorney General, Eric Holder.
          The president’s incompetence on both the domestic and international scene is bad enough; he’s not the first incompetent president we’ve ever had.  But he is the first one, in my view, to have placed his ideology and political interests above the good of the country.  Every federal agency under his control, from the IRS to the EPA, has been radicalized to advance his agenda.  And Eric Holder has been right there to make sure that every scandal is covered up, every access to the truth denied, and every congressional investigation thwarted, even to the point of being cited for contempt of Congress.  Meanwhile, our supremely arrogant president takes responsibility for nothing, holds no one accountable, blames all his failures on others, and proves his untrustworthiness with empty threats and unrepentant mendacity.
          In a recent speech President Obama boasted of his inviolability by saying of the coming elections, “My name is not on the ballot.”  But then he added, without a hint of remorse for the damage he’s done to this country, “but my policies are.”  Indeed.
          The latest polls indicate that voters intend to register their opposition to Obama’s policies in November.  Those who have consistently supported the president and his agenda will face the wrath of the people.  Of course, I may be wrong.  But I have more faith in the concerned citizenry than I have in Obama and his henchmen.