The New Deal Constitution (c1937)

H.L. Mencken already had 2010 figured out in 1937. A better Constitution for a New Year!
-----------------------
This satirical piece first appeared in The American Mercury, 41 (June 1937), 129-36, and was reprinted in condensed form by The Reader’s Digest, 31 (July 1937), 27-29. In order to indicate what reached the widest audience, the condensed version appears here, thanks to LewRockwell.com
The principal cause of the uproar in Washington is a conflict between the swift- moving idealism of the New Deal and the unyielding hunkerousness of the Constitution of 1788. What is needed, obviously, is a wholly new Constitution, drawn up with enough boldness and imagination to cover the whole program of the More Abundant Life, now and hereafter.
That is what I presume to offer here. The Constitution that follows is not my invention, and in more than. one detail I have unhappy doubts of its wisdom. But I believe that it sets forth with reasonable accuracy the plan of government that the More Abundant Life wizards have sought to substitute for the plan of the Fathers. They have themselves argued at one time or another, by word or deed, for everything contained herein:
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish social justice, draw the fangs of privilege, effect the redistribution of property, remove the burden of liberty from ourselves and our posterity, and insure the continuance of the New Deal, do ordain and establish this Constitution.


ARTICLE I
The Executive
All governmental power of whatever sort shall be vested in a President of the United States. ...
The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia, Boy Scouts, C.I.O., People’s Front, and other armed forces of the nation.
The President shall have the power: To lay and collect taxes, and to expend the income of the United States in such manner as he may deem to be to their or his advantage;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to provide for its repayment on such terms as he may fix;
To regulate all commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and within them; to license all persons engaged or proposing to engage in business; to regulate their affairs; to limit their profits by proclamation from time to time; and to fix wages, prices and hours of work;
To coin money, regulate the content and value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to amend or repudiate any contract requiring the payment by the United States, or by any private person, of coin of a given weight or fineness;

To repeal or amend, in his discretion, any so-called natural law, including Gresham’s law, the law of diminishing returns, and the law of gravitation.

The President shall be assisted by a Cabinet of eight or more persons, whose duties shall be to make speeches whenever so instructed and to expend the public funds in such manner as to guarantee the President’s continuance in office.
The President may establish such executive agencies as he deems necessary, and clothe them with such powers as he sees fit. No person shall be a member to any such bureau who has had any practical experience of the matters he is appointed to deal with.
One of the members of the Cabinet shall be an Attorney General. It shall be his duty to provide legal opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the President, and to gather evidence of the senility of judges.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/28/a-new-deal-constitution/

Cruel Hard Math

Naked emperors do not trouble themselves with such prosaic things as math
---------------------------------------

We're Screwed!  ShadowStats.com founder John Williams explains the risk of hyperinflation. Worst-case scenario? Rioting in the streets and devolution to a bartering system.

What can we do to avoid hyperinflation? What if we just shut down the Fed or something like that?
We can't. The actions have already been taken to put us in it. It's beyond control. The government does put out financial statements usually in December using generally accepted accounting principles, where unfunded liabilities like Medicare and Social Security are included in the same way as corporations account for their employee pension liabilities. And in 2008, for example, the one-year deficit was $5.1 trillion dollars. And that's instead of the $450 billion, plus or minus, that was officially reported.

Wow.
These numbers are beyond containment. Even the 2008 numbers, you can take 100 percent of people's income and corporate profit and you'd still be in deficit. There's no way you can raise enough money in taxes.


http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=16014

Blue Moon on New Year's Eve!

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Once in a blue moon there is one on New Year's Eve. Revelers ringing in 2010 will be treated to a so-called blue moon. According to popular definition, a blue moon is the second full moon in a month. But don't expect it to be blue - the name has nothing to do with the color of our closest celestial neighbor.
...
A full moon occurs every 29.5 days, and most years have 12. On average, an extra full moon in a month - a blue moon - occurs every 2.5 years. The last time there was a lunar double take was in May 2007. New Year's Eve blue moons are rarer, occurring every 19 years. The last time was in 1990; the next one won't come again until 2028.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091229/D9CT6H701.html

GM=Amtrak

This will never end, on the finance side or the automotive side.
---------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - GMAC Financial Services is expected to get about $3.5 billion in additional U.S. government aid to help the troubled lender absorb mortgage losses, a financial industry source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The announcement is expected within days, the source said, speaking anonymously because the talks have been private.

GMAC has already received $12.5 billion in aid from the U.S. government since December 2008.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BT06O20091230

Daley Says Dems too Radical

You know they have gone over the edge when even the Chicago machine thinks things have gone too far:

Keep the Big Tent big
By William M. Daley
Thursday, December 24, 2009; A15

The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
 ...
The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html

Max Baucus or Max Bacchus?

Drunk with power? You decide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA

Surprise- You're a State Employee!

We're from the Union, and we're here to help you.
Do you provide services to anyone who receives government subsidies?  Congratulations- you're now a State Employee! Under this logic, anyone who accepts subsidized rent payments, food stamps, provides health care, etc., etc.... is a public employee.
This is how freedom really dies- from a million paper cuts:

Michigan Forces Business Owners Into Public Sector Unions
Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her. The situation is crazy—and it's happening elsewhere in the country.
A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day-care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out.
Many of the state's other 34,000 day-care providers never even realized what was going on. Ms. Berry tells us she was "shocked" to find out she was suddenly in a union. The real dirty work, however, had been done when the state created an "employer" for the union to "organize" against.
Of course, Michigan's independent day-care providers don't work for anybody except the parents who were their customers. Nevertheless, because some of these parents qualified for public subsidies, the Child Care Providers "union" claimed the providers were "public employees."
Michigan's Department of Human Services then teamed with Flint-based Mott Community College to sign an "interlocal agreement" in 2006 establishing a separate government agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. This council was directed to recommend good child-care practices—and not coincidentally, to serve as a "public employer." Although the council had almost no staff, no control over the state subsidies and no supervision of the providers' daily activities, it became the shell corporation against which the union could organize.
Thus the state created an ersatz employer and an ersatz "bargaining unit" against which what was essentially an ersatz union could organize.

Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union—from the child-care subsidies. The money should be going to home-based day-care providers—themselves not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her. She says she is "self employed and wants nothing to do with the union." 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612341241120838.html

CPSIA- No Joy in Toyland

Among the worst bills ever passed; OpEd written by one of the CPSIA regulators!

Thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), small businesses like Baby Sprout Naturals and Whimsical Walney have already closed their doors. And some 40% of companies responding to a Toy Industry Association survey planned to eliminate jobs this year because the cost and complexity of compliance with this law is too great. For manufacturers and sellers of children's products, perhaps a renewed interest in saving small businesses comes in the nick of time.
The safety legislation, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2008, is a study in the law of unintended consequences. The new law reduced the Consumer Product Safety Commission's longstanding discretion to act in response to genuine risks, substituting instead the rigid, broad-brush, and unscientific judgment of Congress. 
Though written in response to dozens of recalls of Chinese-made toys with lead paint, the law goes well beyond lead paint (which poses an undeniable risk to children) to ban all children's products that contain a component with more than three one-hundredths of 1% lead. This means such ordinary items as zippers, buttons, belts, the hinge on a child's dresser—and even that bicycle from Santa Claus—are outlawed.
These products often contain lead in excess of the new legal limit, but unlike lead surface paint, this lead is contained within the metal or other substrate material. The lead can rub off these items in miniscule amounts detectable only with sensitive lab equipment, but it is not "bioavailable"—meaning it is unable to be extracted and absorbed into a child's bloodstream. By failing to distinguish between easily absorbable lead in paint and not easily absorbable lead in other materials, the legislation was a dramatic overreach. 
It gets worse. In addition to banning components that do not create a lead hazard for children, the law also imposes onerous product testing by outside labs that smaller manufacturers and handicraft makers simply cannot afford. Instead of spending money to expand and create jobs, companies have diverted billions of dollars so far to destroy innocuous but noncompliant inventory, as well as to understand and meet complex new compliance obligations.
Major charities, like Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army, have publicly estimated lost inventory and disposal costs at $100 million to $170 million in secondhand children's clothing—such as winter coats with metal snaps—that's not affordable to test for compliance, yet still needed by many families.
Bicycle manufacturers have re-engineered dozens of parts from more expensive and less environmentally friendly materials to replace handle bars, spokes, tire valve stems and other harmless metal parts that contain lead.
To cope with annual testing costs running to half a million dollars or more, domestic retailers and manufacturers like Challenge & Fun, Inc., Constructive Playthings, and ETA Cuisenaire (a maker of educational tools), have reduced payrolls or limited product lines. Many small apparel companies, including JenLynnDesigns, have either closed shop or exited the children's apparel market completely.
In just the first eight months after enactment, the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimated that the 2008 safety law cost businesses in the "billions of dollars range," including: more than $2 billion in losses to the toy industry; $200 million in potentially violative inventory for members of one apparel industry group (the California Fashion Association); and an estimated $1 billion in annual losses reported by the Motorcycle Industry Council for lost sales of youth model motorbikes and off-road vehicles. Several popular German toymakers such as Selecta Spielzeug, whose products comply with stringent EU regulations, have stopped selling their toys in this country. Consumers are facing higher prices for a smaller variety of products that are no safer than before.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612573263963560.html

Naked Emperors at Copenhagen!

So Chavez, one of the world's top oil barons, gets thunderous applause at Copenhagen. Doesn't this fact alone tell you that this farce has nothing whatever to do with "carbon" or even "climate"?  Down with "imperial dictatorships" he says (up with non-imperial dictatorships)?  This would all be ridiculous enough, but then they trot out Robert Mugabe...

"President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

 And a mass-murderer at Copenhagen lectures us about our crimes:

The anti-capitalist theme was picked up on by Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s veteran President, who is the target of Western sanctions over alleged human rights abuses.
“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans

Death & Taxes

3 weeks before the year ends, and they are toying around with this? 45% vs, Zero?  I swear much of this recession is just about regime uncertainty. No one can make any financial decisions because you never know what this gaggle of idiots is going to impose on us next. With so much uncertainty, no investments are made.

"In less than three weeks, the hated death tax is scheduled to expire—with the rate falling from 45% to zero for 2010. Then the tax will be resurrected in 2011 at a rate of 55%. This bizarre policy dates back to 2001 when Democrats wouldn't let President Bush permanently kill the death tax, so Republicans bet that if the tax were eliminated for one year, it would never come back.
Well, the moment of truth has arrived, and House Democrats recently voted 234-199 to cancel the 2010 repeal and hold the rate permanently at 45% with a $3.5 million exemption."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574579932066655144.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

SARBOX and Emperor Spawning

SARBOX is among the worst blows to capitalism we have experienced in the US, and a little recognized driver of the great recession. If the Supremes do their job, the entire law could be revoked for an unconstitutional spawning of Czars!

The most powerful czar in Washington will receive some long-overdue scrutiny today when the Supreme Court hears a challenge to the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
This board, created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, regulates the auditors of publicly-traded firms. The members are hired by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and, say the plaintiffs in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, do not answer to the president. This violates the Constitution's "appointments clause," according to which senior executive-branch officials should be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

A glimmer of hope lies in the fact that Sarbox, drafted in the political panic following the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals, failed to include a "severability clause." Thus if PCAOB is struck down as unconstitutional, all of Sarbanes-Oxley could come crashing down with it.


Is all this fuss about board appointments just legal hairsplitting? Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the plaintiffs suing the PCAOB, doesn't think so. He notes that "responsibility for bureaucrats was a fundamental issue for the Framers," and that the appointments clause was created "as an essential check on overweening bureaucracy. As colonists of England, they had seen offices created by both the king and Parliament spawn more offices with no accountability, creating what the Declaration of Independence refers to as a 'multitude of new offices' and 'swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.'"
Today, people who work at public companies—and their investors—understand this problem perfectly.





http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539921864252380.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Property Rights Victory in NY! - Kaur Case

If only the Supremes had done their job as well in Kelo...  Opinion in the Kaur case:

"The time has come to categorically reject eminent domain takings solely based on underutilization. This concept put forward by the respondent transforms the purpose of blight removal from the elimination of harmful social and economic conditions in a specific area to a policy affirmatively requiring the ultimate commercial development of all property regardless of the character of the community subject to such urban renewal."

http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/04/new-york-court-puts-a-stop-to