Sunday, September 17, 2017

Myles Culbertson - To Stop A Runaway

Back in 1979, I was one of a group of a couple dozen young cattlemen that met in Washington DC with various legislative and executive branch leaders.  From farms and ranches across the country, all in our 20’s and 30’s, most of us were encountering top levels of federal government for the first time.  At USDA, we joined together in a conference room with the Secretary of Agriculture and several of his senior personnel for a revealing and, for us, troubling insight into the political mindset of an administrative state.

The Secretary sat polite and quiet at the head table while several senior personnel on his right and left began an orchestrated lecture to our group of young cattle producers about how it was no longer agriculture’s department of government.  “The new USDA is now the department of the consumer,” one said, and declared the interests of the country’s agricultural producers were no longer the agency’s focus.  The mostly one-sided discussion was condescending, bordering on hostile, and our group was more than a little caught off guard by the tone.  Meanwhile, the Secretary, the President’s man in the room, sat timid and compliant.

During the short question and answer exchange, I raised my hand:  “Being that this is an election year and considering the positions you have laid out today, what happens to all this if there is a basic change, in other words if the sitting President is not re-elected?” I had not intended it to be a provocative question, but they took it that way.  The crusty old high-ranking career type on the Secretary’s right took the question, declaring, “presidents come and presidents go,” and, rudely pointing his thumb toward the Secretary, he continued, “and it doesn’t matter who is sitting in that chair.  We are the ones who run the department, and we’re not going anywhere.”

It turns out he wasn’t entirely correct about where he was not going.  A new President was elected that year, and apparently this official had gained the attention of more than just our little bunch of cowboys.  I eventually learned the new Boss transferred him to a remote inspection station at a minor border crossing in Minnesota, where he finished out his career.

Although much of the administrative state as we know it had its beginnings in the FDR days, I believe we were witnessing, in 1979, an aggressive acceleration that was even eclipsing the president’s own agenda at the time, analogous to a horse “cold-jawing” and running off.  In the decades since, there have been piecemeal attempts to bring the bureaucracy to heel, but the curve has always trended upward to the point that the administrative state is now not just an instrumentality of government, but in many ways the government itself, unaccountable, with its own executive, legislative and judicial functions formerly reserved to, and separated between, the branches set forth in the Constitution.                                                                                                

Over the years I have had the privilege of working with many dedicated professionals in government, true public servants, men and women who do their country proud.  However, many of the agencies they work for have suffered decades-long mission creep, growing into an overall bureaucracy whose reach is excessive and whose appetite demands hundreds of billions of dollars each year from an irresponsible Congress that, in some ways, resembles the timid Ag Secretary of that 1979 meeting.

The natural gravitational pull of human nature causes people and organizations to invade spaces when no boundaries are set.  In government, such voids are created by a Congress that has become accustomed to passing legislation that reads more like platitudes than laws, providing funding with non-existent dollars, and instructing the agencies to write their own rules.  With no mechanism for serious legislative review, the legislators simply write the hot check and hurry off to the next fashionable topic, casting accountability and restraint aside.

The results are as suffocating as they are predictable. At the time of our meeting in 1979 the national debt was $827 billion (31% of GDP). Today it is $20.4 trillion (107% of GDP).  Each man, woman, and child in the United States owes a stifling $60,000 piece of this debt that will ultimately come due in one devastating form or another.  Prosperity and productivity strangle, while government continues to grow, regulate, dominate, and “spend like a drunken sailor” as I used to say, until an old sailor reminded me that, in his day, when he ran out of money he would quit drinking. 

Over the past several years, the unelected regulators were turning out more than 80,000 pages of new regulations yearly, causing an annual $1.88 trillion in lost economic productivity & higher prices, costing each household almost $15,000.  New major regulations were outpacing new laws by a ratio of 16 to 1. (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2014).  In 2015, regulation’s direct cost to the economy amounted to $197 billion, and forced 127 million paperwork burden hours on America’s businesses and families (American Action Forum). 

But, at the end of the day, is the bureaucracy alone to blame? 

Today, we shake our collective fist at the 440-plus federal agencies and their 1.4 million employees; however, the administrative state is only a product of those who construct and feed it.  Simplistically pointing the finger at the bureaucracy is not unlike blaming an overweight housecat for eating everything the owner gives it.

Ideological presidents have often misused the powers of the executive branch to pursue their agendas, but the legislative branch has done little to slow the runaway.  When Congress became a career choice rather than a term of service, the natural rules of self-interested human nature took over.  As a result, the combination of ambitious presidents and a pandering, self-dealing Congress has delivered to the American people not only a stifling regulatory environment, but a crushing national debt that will eventually fall to the American people for collection.

Those who make up the Legislative Branch have repeatedly proven they will not limit themselves, force accountability on the government, or restrain their own profligate spending.  Without concise constitutional direction they will refuse to change their ways.  The corrosive combination of career politicians, debt, and regulatory over-reach would appear to be unstoppable, casting America into permanent decline with no possibility of returning to its exceptional past, but that isn’t the case.  The nation’s original rulebook, the Constitution, holds the key to a solution as big as the problem. 

Interestingly, and fortunately, concise constitutional direction can be imposed.  The founders of our nation and the framers of its Constitution took into account the fact of human nature, acknowledging that both virtue and vice exist concurrently among those who govern.  Checks and balances were built into the articles of the Constitution to deal with such human frailties, and for times like these, the mechanism in Article V provides the means to propose amendments in order to clarify and strengthen the Constitution’s fundamental intent.  The Constitution has been amended 27 times, all proposed by Congress and ratified by at least ¾ of the states.  Other amendments have been proposed by Congress but defeated by the states; and one, prohibition, was repealed by the states.

In their wisdom, the framers also anticipated times when Congress, succumbing to human nature, would be unwilling to propose amendments that threaten the self-interested motives of its members.  With that in mind, language was included in Article V to give the states themselves the authority to convene for the purpose of proposing amendments for ratification, bypassing Congress.  Two thirds (34) of the state legislatures can bring together a national convention to consider amendments limited to the common language set forth in the respective states’ resolutions. 

A rapidly growing movement has taken root across the country to call for a convention to consider amendments that would impose fiscal restraint, limit the power & jurisdiction of the federal government, and set term limits on federal officials.  Some two million citizens have signed on to the effort, residing in every state legislative district in the United States.  To date, 12 states have passed identical resolutions calling for a convention.  Another 23 have active legislation in play this year. 

This is no mere flash in the pan. Known as the Convention of States Project, the traction is evident, pushing toward the reality of a convention to be called under the constitutional authority of Article V, with all fifty states in attendance, to discuss, develop debate, and propose amendments to the American people for their ratification.

The scope of the Convention’s deliberations will be dictated, and limited, by identical language contained in resolutions of a minimum of 34 states:  “(1) impose fiscal restraint, (2) limit the power & jurisdiction of the federal government, and (3) set term limits on federal officials.”  Nothing may be considered outside that scope.  Any proposals arising from the convention will have to run the gamut of at least 38 of the fifty states to be ratified as amendments.

In 1979, we observed at our USDA meeting, as well as in conferences with the legislators, that congressional indifference had already allowed a degree of erosion of the Founders’ intended form of government. However, I doubt anyone on either end of the political spectrum would have believed that, less than 40 years later, federal regulation would seize such a broad stranglehold, or that the direct national debt would exceed the country’s Gross National Product, or that the total unfunded liabilities added in would increase the obligation by a factor of five, or that our elected officials, more concerned about their careers than the country, would allow any of this.  But, here we are in 2017, facing all of it.

The framers of the Constitution recognized the possible scenario of an out of control government, and so provided the simple language of Article V:  The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress”

If the Convention of States Project succeeds, and it very likely will, Americans will have an opportunity to reign in this cold-jawed runaway and force accountability on those who were sent to serve, not to rule.  It will be accomplished by using the exact mechanism prescribed by the framers.  Those in the deep-rooted political and administrative establishment may presently believe they are not going anywhere but, like the fellow whiling away his days at that remote border crossing, they should not be so certain about where they think they are not going. 

Information on the Convention of States Project can be found at www.conventionofstates.com .


A topic which should be of interest to many. Check out their Real Answers to Article V Questions and let us know your thoughts. 

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cold-jawed runaways....If gag bits, ring bits, double twisted wire, overcheck and run-out bits don't work - even when used at the same time in combination with a war bridle - then throw their head away, over and under them with the reins, while spurring deep each and every stride -- they'll eventually have to come back to you.


'Tis about the only way to deal with runaway government.

But the ones to really watch out for are the creepers, appearing to obey by standing quietly in one place -- while they pretend that they're just stomping at flies with their feet and place each foot back down a couple more inches forward at a time....eventually ending up on the other side of the fence before anyone notices.

Who needs a university when horses can teach you all you need to know about government?

Anonymous said...

Oh look! Rainbows and unicorns! Any one believing that the agenda will be held to the topics initially outlined in the "resolutions" is naïve at best. Additional topics and agendas will undermine and sway the original good intentions had by some.
But that may work out...... Lets get after it with the needed friskiness/unpleasantness while some of us are still able to participate with stored powder and still-limber rope. Sooner the better. soapweed

Anonymous said...

Just like their 'resolutions' for the softer language of 'temporary taxes' to appease city voters who don't realize 'temporary' means until the raise taxes again.

Unknown said...

It is easy to simply state opposition, but much more difficult to state the reasoning. The burden of proof lies with whoever challenges the premise of Article V. Mr Soapweed needs to tell us why he/she knows why, and how, external agendas will make their way through a process of legislative selection of commissioners, introduction and passage of irrelevant proposals, and ratification by at least 38 states. I await your answer.

Frank DuBois said...

The Westerner

Mr. Frank DuBois



I am with the crowd that believes a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) is the worst thing we could advance at this time. I do agree that there is a need for at least three amendments to our Constitution. The first being a means of limiting Congress’s total spending, perhaps to some percentage of our Gross National Product. The second is one limiting the term of office for Congressional critters. A third would be an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment.



A balanced Budget Amendment means nothing unless taxes are effectively limited. One such recent proposal addressed the balanced budget issue by giving Congress more taxing powers under any circumstance that could even remotely be considered a crisis.



As great as our constitution is, it has a number of deficiencies, one of which is a prescribed means to elect delegates and then shackle those delegates to the business at hand. Granted, that process was left to the states, but I have to question the merits of that decision. Who do you send? Who chooses? How are they chosen? Again, political agendas, not the country’s welfare will rule.



Another question we all must ask when the subject of Con-Con comes up; Congress isn't paying much attention to the Constitution now, how would more amendments change that fact? We might also pay attention to the fact that elements from all sides of the political arena are pushing for a Con-Con, and that isn't because they all are pursuing the same honorable goals.



While the 11 states that sent delegates to the first and only Constitutional Convention in 1787 included words in their resolutions to limit the activities to the revision of The Articles of Confederation, the delegates chose to do something entirely different. We are fortunate that they produced the document they did. We may not be so lucky the next time. One only has to take a cursory look at the Federalist Papers to see that there was opposition to a government of the people, by the people and for the people at that time. Consider what awaits such a convention today. One of the groups pushing for a Con-Con has a complete replacement in hand that is based on "Positive Rights". Positive Rights imposes on the government the requirement to provide certain things (basically a list of liberal dreams) rather than insuring equal opportunity to honestly acquire these things.

I'm attaching an article by Tom DeWeese that provides considerable information on the challenges put forth in calling for a con-con. It just isn't the easy solution to our problems as some seem to think and we need to understand why, before we jump on the pro Con-Con train. I’m also attaching a letter from Chief Justice Earl Warren in which he gives his opinion concerning a State’s ability to shackle delegates.



These are my basic points in opposition to a con-con. I also have grave concerns with the motivation behind some of the groups advocating for a con-con. There are many who argue in favor of such and there are those within that group that plan to seize control and advance their own agenda. I'll go with Chief Justice Burger, as do most in my circle of advocates for freedom.



The best thing Congress could do right now is to propose an amendment to appeal the 17th Amendment and that isn’t about to happen. There will be no change in DC until the States again have their voice in Congress.



Dorsey J.Glenn



Attachments:



“Power Forces Calling for a Constitutional Convention”, By Tom DeWeeseLetter From Chief Justice Burger to Phyllis Shaffely (now deceased) of Eagle Forum

Unknown said...

Thanks, Myles.

Your keen insight and dedication to a better New Mexico is apparent with everything you do. Nice work!

For those who are paying attention, we are witnessing a run-away, self-serving government, the likes of which would shock our founders. But they would be pleased to know that they had the wisdom and foresight to provide for us, Article V as our safety valve. The only question is: Will the people use this tool to save our Republic? Like you, Myles, I believe the people will answer the call.

Unknown said...

Using the tern Con-Con is a clever and disingenuous way to discourage the uninformed of our population from fully investigating Article V and the Convention of States. Some will actually fall for it. Those who are willing to do their own independent research will discover that the term Con-Con was only used to make fools of them. it is those people that will ultimately make the difference for our Republic.

Unknown said...

I agree that a constitutional convention would be a poor idea. Writing and effecting a new constitution is as ludicrous and unnecessary as it is impossible. There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States for a constitutional convention, or as the detractors of an Article V convention like to call it, a “con-con.”

What does exist, however is a provision in Article V for ¾ of the states to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution, whether proposed by Congress, or by a convention brought together by action of at least 2/3 of the state legislatures.

The framers of the Constitution knew the document would need amendments from time to time, and they also knew that a self-serving Congress might have to be bypassed by the states. That is specifically why the mechanism to protect our constitutional republic is prescribed in Article V, and why more than one path to achieve that protection was set forth.

The notion of not amending the constitution simply because Congress misbehaves is a bizarre attempt at logic, like saying there are lawbreakers, therefore we should not pass laws. Further, the statement that “elements from all sides of the political arena are pushing for a ‘con-con’ ” is misleading. Elements from sides of the arena may express desire to achieve a convention, as is their privilege, but it is deceptive to promulgate the illusion that all topic agendas are the same, or that radicals have any chance of success.

The letter from Earl Warren speaks of a “constitutional convention” being a grand waste of time, and that there is no way to muzzle its deliberations. I would agree that there is no legal way for any of the three branches of the federal government to restrict or otherwise impose influence on the deliberations. It will be up to the states, and even if we were to stipulate that some delegations could go outside their own state-mandated resolutions that called for the convention, it is inconceivable that an entire convention would turn in that direction. However, if we were to, in the extreme, stipulate to that possibility, then whatever came out of such an out-of-control mob would have to be ratified by at least 38 of the fifty states, which will not happen. In such a wild scenario, I would have to agree with Justice Burger that it would be a “grand waste of time.” At the end of the day, that is all it would be.

Unknown said...

We should also take into consideration Justice Antonin Scalia’s view:

“…The founders inserted this alternative method (in Article V) of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.”

“…If the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let’s take it.”

“…I would like to put the whole thing in perspective, though, and tell why I am willing to risk those absurdities (of a runaway convention). What is the alternative? The alternative is continuing with a system that provides no means of obtaining a constitutional amendment, except through the kindness of the Congress, which has demonstrated that it will not propose amendments, no matter how generally desired, of certain types.”

“…It (Congress) likes the existing confusion, because that deters resort to the convention process. It does not want amending power to be anywhere but in its own hands.”

“…I am not sure how long a people can accommodate to directives from a legislature it feels is no longer responsive, and to directives from a life tenured judiciary that was never meant to be responsive, without losing its will to control its own destiny.”

The arguments against a convention of the states consistently and predictably center, in large part, around the fear of a runaway convention. I believe there are multiple and manifold natural mechanisms against that possibility. More importantly, I believe the country will not accept proposed amendments that are not suitable, reasonable, or that somehow infringe upon the constitutional rights of its citizens.

The detractors of a convention of the states seem to rest on a general belief that the states, and their citizens, cannot be trusted. I believe they can.