The Winner of A Boot to the Head is....

[Bayushi]

(Following Hairy's method. Thanks for the fun ideas, Harry)

Today's winner of a HUGE boot the head is....

It's a three-way tie!

Guess who?!


Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi


Senator Harry Reid

Why these three?

Last week, HUMAN EVENTS reported that eleven states, Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, had all “all introduced bills and resolutions” declaring their sovereignty over Obama’s actions in light of the 10th Amendment.

These actions are in response to the Obama administration’s faux-“stimulus” legislation which directly assaults the rights of states to reject the money coming from the federal government. So far, several Republican governors -- among them South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal -- have said they would refuse all or part of the stimulus money because of the constitutional infringements and because of the additional unfunded liabilities they impose on the states.

This week, HUMAN EVENTS is happy to report that five more states have decided to invoke the 10th as well.


These five -- Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and West Virginia -- have all begun their action under the 10th Amendment in a bid to protect themselves from what they view as nothing less than an unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of the Obama administration.

On February 23, HJR 108 was put forth in the Tennessee legislature, indicating that legislators in that state decided “it [was] time to affirm state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and demand the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution,” according to Truman Bean.

Quoted from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30917&page=1#c1

Not entirely sure where this may or may not go.... but from the way I'm pretty sure Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will respond, there could very likely end up being a secession from the Union.

I know that my state would not bother taking issue with this, given that Oregon is about as Blue as a state gets, at least governmentally. The majority of the state's population seems to be more conservative and/or religious, contrary to the state's representation(or lack thereof).

I have a hard time conceiving of the nation being less than 50 states, right now. I also fear for the sovereignty of the nation, as well as for the basic freedoms of the people.

I'm not a Republican, but I happen to like Republicans(the real Republicans, not RINO's like Arlen Specter, GW Bush, etc) somewhat more than I do the Democrats. Democrats and "liberalism" used to mean something. Now, it feels as if they are simply a prettier name for Socialism.

I'm disgusted with the course this nation has taken.

Hat tip to Akiko for emailing me the link to this story

[Inkidu]

Yeah this could be a problem. That tenth one is tricky.

[Mnemaxa]

Apparently, the governments failed to learn anything from the first Depression.

[Bayushi]

Apparently, the governments failed to learn anything from the first Depression.

Indeed!

[MHaji]

It's curious, though, that a lot of the anti-Obama states happily took money from Republican administrations - in even larger amounts than those snobby East Coast Liberal States. There's an incredible irony in Tennessee's position, given the critical role that the Tennessee Valley Authority played in getting their state wired up with electricity and raised from third-world poverty during the Depression.

Of course, the TVA also displaced people and caused ill-will, so it was hardly a graceful economic stimulus. But it worked, contrary to eventual after-the-fact carping by Reagen et al.

Apparently, the governments failed to learn anything from the first Depression.

Yes. The government of Tennessee in particular.

Or do you mean the Federal Government? Because, if I recall correctly, the policies in place during the 1920's that paved the way for the Depression included a laissez-faire attitude to corporate irresponsibility, a screwy trade structure that resulted in warehouses full of unsold goods, and - wait for it - massive, unregulated stock, commodity, and real-estate speculation.

Socialism did not cause the Great Depression - though, contrary to the myth propagated by the Far Left, it didn't end it, either.

Consider a hypothetical case. Would that money have been refused if it came from a McCain administration? I doubt it, and any claims that Republicans respect state sovereignty too much to pull such a stunt have lost all credibility, along with claims that Republicans stand for "individual rights over Statism" (lost with the secret prison camps/torture/roving wiretaps).

Somebody deserves a boot to the head here, but it's not Obama. Turning down money that can help your citizens in order to attack your political opponents is not a stand on principle, not when your party's been expanding the power of the State for eight years. If these congresspeople really cared about this kind of thing, they'd have been cutting the pork out of their own bills, not scuttling others.

[MHaji]

Lovely. I [tag]-fail, and I can't edit my posts yet.

[consortium11]

It's all entirely meaningless... not even a storm in a teacup.

They have all introduced legislation... which takes precisely one legislator to introduced the legislation. None have been put to the vote, none have been close to passing. Hell, IIRC a couple of states introduced similar legislation while Bush was in power.

Hell, when the story first broke it included Cali in the list... despite the Governator saying he'd take any Stimulus money that other states didn't want for his own state... and I believe the governor of michigan did the same thing.

It's a political move... much like Bobby Jindal making a lot of noise about not accepting Stimulus money... where he'd turning down $100m but taking 4 billion.

This becomes news if any of the measures get put to vote and pass. As it stands it's no different to any of the other bits of legislation that have been introduced and gone no-where. Like the recent legislation introduced in Illinois to force firearms owners to take out $1m liability insurance.

Or let's look at all the states that introduced impeach Bush legislation... where did that go?

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/states.html

Let's also look at the state legislature itself... in this case michigan again:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tddgkx45vxyckj45qnim4rrs))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-SAR-0006&query=on

That was introduced by a Republican... and passed... and it's not like it would have been done if they intended to turn down the stimulus and really rattle their state rights sabre.

[Inkidu]

It's all entirely meaningless... not even a storm in a teacup.

They have all introduced legislation... which takes precisely one legislator to introduced the legislation. None have been put to the vote, none have been close to passing. Hell, IIRC a couple of states introduced similar legislation while Bush was in power.

Hell, when the story first broke it included Cali in the list... despite the Governator saying he'd take any Stimulus money that other states didn't want for his own state... and I believe the governor of michigan did the same thing.

It's a political move... much like Bobby Jindal making a lot of noise about not accepting Stimulus money... where he'd turning down $100m but taking 4 billion.

This becomes news if any of the measures get put to vote and pass. As it stands it's no different to any of the other bits of legislation that have been introduced and gone no-where. Like the recent legislation introduced in Illinois to force firearms owners to take out $1m liability insurance.

Or let's look at all the states that introduced impeach Bush legislation... where did that go?

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/states.html

Let's also look at the state legislature itself... in this case michigan again:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tddgkx45vxyckj45qnim4rrs))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-SAR-0006&query=on

That was introduced by a Republican... and passed... and it's not like it would have been done if they intended to turn down the stimulus and really rattle their state rights sabre.

This whole "depression" is a political media frenzy. I don't doubt we're in a depression. This happens every twenty years or so (With skewed data of course i.e the 80's) but this had been stoked so badly by media that I'm actually wondering if stimulus is needed. Now you have this argument crap and it's getting absurd. I'm not talking about individual budgets because obviously some are worse off than other, but on the whole this is right on par for the time.

[consortium11]

Hijack

Whether the stimulus is needed or not depends on your economic views: An Austrian theorist would say no (although he'd include the tax cuts found within the stimulus) and a Keynesian would say it is. The Austrian school works on the basis of a buisness cycle, and so to sort out the economy long term would require a huge correction without government inteference, so in their view to "fix" the economy things will have to stay this bad, if not worse. for the next decade or so.

Keynesians on the other hand believe you should intefere to stimulate the market, rather than letting it correct itself. The question is, does it actually help or even hinder? It's hard to say... there are still great debates raging around whether the New Deal helped or hindered ending the great depression, same with Japan over the last decade.

What also should be considered is that no Government at the moment is Keynsian. If they were they'd have cut spending during the boom periods of the 80's to late 90's and 2003-7. They didn't... they spent even more. As the basis of that economic theory is spending money in recession you saved during the boom to ease the damage, there's now no money to spend to do it.

Which leads to the US (and now the UK) simply creating more money out of midair... which leads to the issue of mass inflation that gets everyone upset.

When it comes down to it, I like to think I have a fairly solid grip on what's going on, but I'm far from the worlds biggest expert. So I bow down to the people who are.

Peter Schiff is the US's leading Austrian theorist, and on the whole I agree with him on a lot of things. On the other hand his Euro Pacific Capital Inc has lost up to 70% (by some reports) of his clients money because he got a lot... and I mean a lot... of big predictions very wrong.

Warren Buffet is the world's greatest investor, and while he's suffered pretty badly over this period (notably with GE stocks) he's done better than most other traditional investors over the period. He says the stimulus is needed, and on that ground I'm tempted to believe him.

It's a complex situation, balancing long term and short term considerations, and anyone who can give a simple "this is how we make it perfect without hurting anyone" answer isn't being genuine.

/hijack

[Valerian]

First of all, having only barely survived one semester of microeconomics in college, I can't really speak for the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the entire bailout plan.

However, I couldn't help but notice that many states on that list -- notably Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, and most of all, Michigan -- are in serious trouble economically.  Michigan has over 10% unemployment, for instance, and the rest of the states I mentioned aren't far behind.

I sincerely hope that these legislators have some other, reasonably practical plan to replace the economic stimulus package, or they may discover that their constituents aren't quite as happy up on that high moral ground.

[Oniya]

I'm actually surprised that Michigan would consider refusal without some concrete backup plan, what with the way that the auto manufacturers have been hit by the economic situation.

[Valerian]

Exactly.  If they're still hoping for good news from the automakers at this point, they're deluding themselves.

[consortium11]

You're both taking this too seriously.

None of the states are honestly considering this as it stands... it's just that its been introduced to the state legislator, much like a dozen other crack-pot bits that get a bit of press and never see the light of day again.

[Oniya]

Actually, I was pointing out why it would be very unlikely for something like this to pass.  In these times, people take help where they can find it.

(Now where's Robert Redford with an indecent proposal when you need him?)

[Valerian]

I never really liked that movie, but the idea does take on a certain extra weight these days, doesn't it?

I need to bookmark this thread, so that if and when those states start to ask for still more federal money for specific businesses, I'll be able to make fun of them most efficiently.  In any case, I hope they realize how silly this makes them look... except we all know that's not going to happen.

[Avi]

States indeed have the right to invoke their rights, refuse stimulus money, etc.  In fact, I'm kind of encouraged that this is happening.  If anything, it will show the Democrats that they can't just walk over the not-inconsiderable conservative population in this country. 

However, there comes a point where you have to respect the authority of the ruling party and step aside somewhat.  By stalling and biding time and generally hindering the plans of the ruling party, the opposition party ends up appearing to be moronic and stubborn.  Case in point:  The Democratic party during the Bush years (at times).  My point is, I guess, that opposition and resistance is good for producing debate and discussion, but in times like these, it can only do so much good.

[MHaji]

However, there comes a point where you have to respect the authority of the ruling party and step aside somewhat.

While I don't think the Republicans should be hyperpartisan obstructionists, or hypocrites, it might be nice if they rediscovered the principles of Classical Liberalism/libertarianism and acted as a counterbalance to the more overzealous parts of the Democratic Party. Even if I agree with Obama, I don't want him to be able to get his way automatically.

But this stimulus bill was a critical move at a critical moment, and the Republicans have already pushed back quite hard enough. All this fringe talk of secession is raising deeply unpleasant associations in my mind.

[HairyHeretic]

And its quite easy for the politicians to talk of principles and refusing to take the money. After all, they have jobs, food on the table, no problems in paying bills. I wonder if those they represent are quite so eager to pass on the money?

[consortium11]

And its quite easy for the politicians to talk of principles and refusing to take the money. After all, they have jobs, food on the table, no problems in paying bills. I wonder if those they represent are quite so eager to pass on the money?

The governers (at least) aren't passing on the money. Even the likes of Jindal, who likes to make a lot of noise about not taking it, is accepting virtually all the money, but turning down a small amount to make a point.

Any credability he had as the GOP saviour after the exorcism scandle has pretty much disappeared with his woeful response (especially him making fun of Volcano disaster money) and his obvious political point making.

[Avi]

And its quite easy for the politicians to talk of principles and refusing to take the money. After all, they have jobs, food on the table, no problems in paying bills. I wonder if those they represent are quite so eager to pass on the money?

Exactly.  I just heard that Scott Walker, the County Executive in Milwaukee County, the neighboring county to mine, just said he would refuse federal stimulus funds in opposition to what most of the other county administrators are saying to do.  Really?  I appreciate you taking a stand for your political beliefs, but I can't help but wonder how your constituents feel about that, many of whom who are clamoring for any help that they can get.  It's been stated that most money would go toward infrastructure like roads and updating the public transit system, which would provide some good jobs for low-income workers.

How Walker can turn away money from a county in desperate need of an economic boost right now is beyond me.

[RubySlippers]

Actually the Washinton State bill I believe reinforces the tenth amendment as an accepted state principle overall, and rightly to, the states should have done this a long time ago. Lets not forget the ninth amendment that trumps everyone leaving citizens their rights as well and often overlooked.

[HairyHeretic]

How Walker can turn away money from a county in desperate need of an economic boost right now is beyond me.

Its called politics.

[Bayushi]

Actually the Washinton State bill I believe reinforces the tenth amendment as an accepted state principle overall, and rightly to, the states should have done this a long time ago. Lets not forget the ninth amendment that trumps everyone leaving citizens their rights as well and often overlooked.

Indeed.

A similar case to this would be Roe v Wade. While I am not against Abortion(I'm against the careless use of it, anyways), as a Libertarian, I am disgusted that the Supreme Court felt the need to 'legislate from the bench' in direct contradiction to the tenth amendment. Those powers and duties NOT granted to the United States(Federal Government) by right falls to the States and the People(the People being city and county governments).

To me, this is the problem. It isn't that it's a hyper-partisan Democrat being rebuffed by hyper-partisan Republicans.... but this "stimulus" bill is infringing upon state rights(as dictated by the Tenth amendment) by mandating that states spend the money in this way or that way. Also not giving them the choice of going without.

It is basically Congress saying, "You'll take this money and do as I say."

No. Just no.

And its quite easy for the politicians to talk of principles and refusing to take the money. After all, they have jobs, food on the table, no problems in paying bills. I wonder if those they represent are quite so eager to pass on the money?

I live on $675 a month. Less than $10,000 a year.

And I want the money to be rejected.