About Me

Name: Ed Bradford
Location: Pflugerville, TX
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Alaska is being robbed. Do something about it

Governor Sarah Palin writes an op-ed on refusing Federal funds
here:

  http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/813086.html

As a strong Constitutionalist and a believer in government
is best that governs the least, I support Governor Palin in
her statements and reasoning.

In fact, I am wondering if more can be done. For instance, what
happens to a state that "certifies" that it will do something,
accepts the money, and then, for one reason or another cannot
fulfill the "certification" promise? Has this ever happened?

By refusing federal funds, Alaska is funding federal government
efforts to increase control in all other states. Alaska is not
getting money back from the federal government which it contributed.

Should more than one state, accept the federal money, promising whatever
is required, and then going merrily along using the money for whatever
purpose the state needs, I suspect a message might come into view.

The same constitution that supports the government making
micromanagement demands on states also supports a state's right
to refuse to actually carry out the demands.

This is is the 9-th in a series of "take back our government" steps
that can be carried out by our citizens and our state legislators.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chrysler's Refinance Act for Pensions

As payback for the millions of dollars given in the presidential
campaign, President Obama has awarded the UAW 55% ownership in Chrysler
corporation at the expense of the "secured shareholders". The best that
can happen out of this is the following:

  The secured creditors go quietly into the night and the new, smaller
  Chrysler corporation begins to be profitable.

The worst that can happen is

  The secured creditors go to court declaring they have been deprived of
  property by the government without just compensation and win AND
  Chrysler corporation goes completely out of business because no
  one wants their cars.

Should the second option happen, what happens to the Chrysler pensions
that were rewarded the 55% ownership in Chrysler? Will the US taxpayers
have to bailout the pension? When that happens, [and it will, I predict]
what will the story be from the government? How will President Obama
explain his management of this sitution?

The Teleprompter says:


  "I put $12 billion into Chrysler in hopes of bailing out Chrysler."

  "I forced the secured creditors to accept 29 cents on the dollar and
   gave the resulting equity to the union and the US Government."

  "I allowed Fiat to buy into Chrysler."

  "I forced Chrysler to reduce its marketing budget because I thought it
   was too large."

  "I gave owership to the Union because they gave me so much money in my
   Presidential campaign."

  "Now, I'm asking for help to refinance the Chrysler union pensions.
   As you can see, my management of the Chrysler automobile company has
   brought about results that aren't all that was hoped for and the
   pension fund is almost bankrupt. This is an emergency and if we
   don't pass the Chrysler Refinance Act for Pensions (CRAP) right
   away, retirees will be cut off from their retrement funds.  By
   injecting $20 billion dollars into this fund, I hope to stablize
   it for the future. Once we do this we hope to not have any
   further problems with the Chrysler pension fund."

   "Please pass this bill quickly so retirees won't go hungry."

   Respectfully filled with Hope,

    President Obama
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chrysler's Secured Creditors Must Challenge all the way.

  I support the owners of Chrysler bonds who are objecting to the
  settlement.

  See:
  http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/guest-post-not-so-fast-indiana-state.html

  Indiana School Teachers Retirement fund, Indiana State Police pension
  fund and others are objecting to the Settlement. Their secured bonds
  which are considered debt should be paid before any other debt in
  bankruptcy proceedings. That is the way bankruptcy has been operated for
  the past 220 years. Now, the Obama administration has deemed the
  US government and auto workers union more important that the teachers
  union and the state police retirement fund by giving the auto union
  55% ownership in the new Chrysler and giving "secured creditors" only
  29 cents on the dollar for their "secured debt". The Indiana funds are
  going to court and they should.

  They should take the case all the way to the SCOTUS. If the government
  wants to steal 70 cents of each secured dollar of investment and give it to someone
  else, then the government should replace each 70 cents it steals by the terms of the
  5-th amendment:

       "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

  That would be the US government taking 70 cents of each dollar
  a fund holds and giving it to itself and the UAW.

  THIS IS BAD GOVERNMENT.

  If the Supreme Court blesses this deal, I will be shocked.
  I will be disappointed if the case is not pursued until the Indiana funds win.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Death by a thousand cuts

2009-05-19
Ed Bradford

Death by a thousand cuts.

Our federal government has gotten out of control. Many people are
worried it has gone beyond the pale. I am one of those people. I believe
our government should work within the words and meaning of the
constitution. If the majority of Americans want this country to
be a socialist state, then that should be reflected in laws and
amendments, not in making the most of a crisis or legislation from the
judicial bench.

I cannot understand any kind of logical thinking whereby many of todays
social policy laws can be derived from the Constitution. I have watched
the debate and have accumulated an incomplete but useful list of
activities citizens might do to begin the process of throttling the
federal government and bringing it back to be subject to the people's
will rather than the reverse.

Here is my list:


1. Amendment to Constitution to limit Congress to the the "17 specific
    powers that are delegated to it in the Constitution"
    [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25372/?ck=1]
    This would be difficult in the current climate because all the
    Democrats want bigger government managing more aspects of everyone's
    lives. (Suggested by Judge Andrew Napolitano, I think, if I read his
    article correctly.)

    [unlikely; nevertheless, a continuing effort should be applied.]

2. Abolish Income Tax for a Fair Tax or Flat Tax
    This would vastly simplify the tax structure and remove many quid
    pro quo opportunities for our legislators. It would also eliminate a
    fair number of IRS employees and shrink the size of government.

    [unlikely, but should be strongly pursued. Ron Paul, and Neil Bortz
     are strong supporters.]

3. Term Limits on Senators and Representatives. One of the major
   problems with our government is the entrenched interests held by
   people who have been elected to office for 20 and more years. Does
   anyone find it curious that the longer you serve in office the
   richer you become or the more powerful you become? I don't think our
   founding fathers had this in mind. Term Limits (2 for Senators, 4 for
   Representatives) would put people in Washington DC who are more
   interested in legislating than gaining power.

   [unlikely. Its like having the chickens vote on dinner time. The
    earlier, the worse it is.]


4. An IYF state law (In Your Face) like the Gun law recently passed
   in Montana. I understand the Montana law is not strong enough
   to survive appeal. A better one would have a state write a law
   that is specifically contradictory of a federal law that has no
   constitutional basis for existence. (3.2 gallons per toilet flush
   requirement might be the right law and a local community could pass
   this one.)

   [likely!! This could be done at the state or local level. It requires
    some dedicated legal assistence and persistence. Montana has started
    with their recent in-state gun laws.]

5. Many states should pass strong affirmations of the 10-th Amendment.
   While I don' think anything specific will come out of that, 20 or
   more states passing such a law will send an unmistakeable message to
   the Federal Government and be a strong support system for electing
   like minded people.

   [likely, but I don't believe it will have much effect. Legal opinion
    might be different, though. I heartily support this effort; it is
    not costly and sends a message.]

6. Start a general revolt in state legislatures. Pass laws that say if
   the state government cannot derive a federal statute from the US
   Constitution, the state will not enforce the law. Leave those laws to the
   federal government to enforce -- sort of like the Sanctuary cities,
   but with logic behind it. Sancutary cities refuse to enforce federal
   laws because they don't like them. States should refuse to enforce a
   federal law if the law cannot be understood to be derived from the
   Constitution. [Suggested on Glenn Beck on May 15, 2009 or
   thereabouts].

   This is what Andrew Jackson did with the Supreme Court. While I don't
   agree with the subject matter in Jackson's dispute, the technique
   looks pretty good.

   [Interesting and confrontational right at the start. It would take
    a brave state legislature and governor. The only states I know with
    that kind of kohonahs are Texas and Oklahoma.]

----------

My recommendation would be to do as many of the 6 plans as possible.
Start a planning Web page with sign ups for communities and states. Montana
is the leader and has already started. Utah and Texas are considering
actions. What about counties and cities? They too can participate.
If the list starts growing, there will be serious concern in Washington,
DC. To address this concern, bills for a Fair Tax and Term Limits should
be prepared and in hand for the right opportunity to submit. The same is
true for the Amendment to the constitution suggested in #1 above.

  Death by 1000 cuts to the Federal Bureaucracy and power monopoly.

States and local legislators should look into #4 above. That is an
efficient way to challenge Administrative Rules that cannot be justified
by the constitution.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

EFCA - Compulsory Contract Negotiation - Referees with an attitude

From:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165379013293871.html

Senator McGovern speaks out against Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
He dislikes two aspects: 1. Elimination of secret ballot; 2. compulsory
contract negotiation.

COMMENT:

EFCA is even more discomforting than Senator McGovern suggests.
If two sides are compelled to negotiate a new contract and the
motivators are government people then politics becomes the motivator.
The motivators will naturally compell a contract beneficial
to the party in power.  Such contracts will cause
private businesses and untions to try to out spend each
other in political campaigns so their party gains power
and thus, negotiators.

The losing party (union or business) must resign itself to 4 years
of unsatisfactory compusory contracts presented by "motivators".
Compulsory negotiation contracts will be a quid pro quo for campaign wins.

Today, unions contribute more money and work to campaigns than
companies. Unions also have many more voters. By working for
the Democratic party and contributing money to campaigns, the quid
pro quo will be when compulsory contract negotiation takes place.

Does anyone doubt that compulsory contract negotation will result
in more Democratic votes? It seems to me, contests between unions
and businesses will have a referee who favors unions.

I'm not sure that is a good idea.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »