THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

1. I absolutely encourage Texas to leave the union, along with any other state that wishes to do so. Nothing better to balance the budget than releasing the nation from a state that sucks in A LOT of federal funds (#2 in the nation according to 2005 numbers), not to mention, a state the greatly benefits from government jobs (nasa, military, defense contractors). I'm sure plenty of states would love that kind of job security and I'd love to take their needs off our budget books.

2. These protests are ridiculous practices in hypocritical and illogical thinking, with a side dish of subtle (and not so subtle) racism. People need to read a book, and remember why the Tea Party happened in the first place. There is representation, albeit, not good representation. Much different from the situation in the late 1700's as a colony.

3. We're all fu**ed.

That's all I have for now.

Chris' second and third points are well taken. I think the organizers of the Tea Bagging are despicable political operatives who don't give a damn about America or its ideals. Their followers are ignorant dupes who are generally too stupid to know they are acting against their own self interest. Frankly, the whole movement is ludicrous and reflects their frustration in failing to find any legitimate traction to stop the many important changes being made by the Obama Administration.

However, I must disagree with his first point. I am not interested in inviting Texas or any other backward thinking state to leave the Union.

We fought a terrible civil war over the question of a state's right to unilaterally succeed from our Union (slavery was not the foremost issue on Lincoln's mind, nor was its abolition the principle issue motivating most Unionist's opposition to the Confederacy). I wouldn't want to fight that fight again. Once in our Union, no state has the right to leave it unilaterally. Before our Civil War, we called ourselves "THESE United States". Following our Civil War, the country began to refer to itself as "THE United States". Let's not go backwards.

Additionally, merely looking at the amount of federal funds that go to a state without looking at the contributions of that state to the national economy and taxes is a one-sided calculation. Texas is important to the United States (albeit many Texans are not very helpful).

Vic, I know what you're talking about. Secession isn't something that I've thought of, up until recently, as anything more than a joke meant to show extreme displeasure with the current political situation. I'm starting to think that, there has to be a point, where we all have to sit across from one another and give us the "it's not you, it's me" shove off. How many decades has it been where there's been such an extreme difference in political leanings between two different parts of the country? When do you pull the plug, instead of forcing us all to tolerate one another? Just like in a marriage, staying together could do more harm than good. I'm no suggesting a war, or anything like what happened, more like a civil parting of ways. This way, they can govern themselves however savagely that they choose, we, on the other hand, could just resort to pointing and laughing.

Chris:
I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that a majority of Texans are buying Governor Perry's nonsensical "secession" rhetoric. In fact, my sense of it is that thinking, rational Texans are embarrassed by secession talk, and by the emerging radical tendencies of their Governor in general. Radical statements usually cause the electorate to sit up and take notice, and the great thing about our democracy is that the leadership in Texas may well change for the better in the next few years.

Even if Texas turns out to be the rogue state that Perry suggests it is, I don't think we can allow them to secede and then hope to ignore the large new country on our southern border, any more than we can afford to ignore Iran or North Korea. What these nations do will continue to affect us here in the U.S., and that goes double for any new Texan nation. Better to work with the good people of Texas within the existing legal/electoral framework of the U.S.A., rather than having to deal with a new sovereign nation founded on extremist principles.

I really do think that it could be better to leave them to rule themselves, then to continue to pollute our political process. There is no doubt that our democracy is showing serious signs of disintegrating as the electoral process is seemingly tampered with at every opportunity (voter fraud, machine tampering, redistricting, etc), and the lack of any significant choice besides the two almost identical parties (sans 5 issues). Part of the problem seems to be that we're way too big to govern effectively, not to mention economics.
Even if Texas was to become a sovereign nation, they would be hugely dependent upon us and other nations to support themselves, so I highly doubt they would be a threat, either militarily or economically. If you want to be sinister about it, their own people could end up rising up against them in an effort to rejoin the states, which is a win win. We get the results, an don't have to do any of the dirty work.

Texans may not be buying that secession talk, but there is a severe ideological chasm that will never be repaired, that should make us all really think about why we're insisting on keeping the union together. Are we just sticking to a habit or is there a real advantage to keeping the states united? A model more like the European Union could be a better fit for the times, and could allow much for freedom for each state or region, however the reshuffle materializes. The constitution is woefully out of date for the times and complexity of society (they didn't know about automatic weapons when they wrote the second amendment, for example). It's getting to the point where a new Constitution needs to be drafted, as being ruled off a 200+ year old document is a bit absurd.

I say, let's not take any options off the table, if we really want to make this country a better place.

Hi All,
As a person that put together a TEA party in Portland Me (see Portland Press Herald 5/8/09 page A11 bottom right).With my own money. I do not even know what to say. Please read the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8. Today "they" are giving GM $2 Billion more with another 6 to 8 more to come.This will never end. Trillions spent no one knows were the money is or were the Trillions more are going. Congress does not even read the bills anymore because there is no time for that. This is going to cause super inflation. One can not print this much money and have it not show up in bad ways.
If you want to change the Constitution there is a procedure for that but until then use the one we have.
Never in the history of the world has this worked and it will not work this time. Please read Milton Friedman or F. A. Hayek I can give you more if you would like but this is a start.
If you think this is just about Mr Obama and not Mr Bush and Congress than you have not been listening.
I could go on and on but I will stop here. As for the signs I did not see anybody say anything about Sara Palin look alike in a hangman's noose, could you imagine what would of happened if that was someone else. Also look up some of the posters of Mr Bush. If you are going to complain about this kind of stupidity keep it even. All it does is shut down dialogue and turn on the hate.
I would be more than glad to have a sit down with anyone or ones willing to have an open and honest debate to fix the problems facing this Great Republic. I'll make the coffee.
Robert W. Horr

Rob:
Art. I, Sec. 8 enumerates the broad legislative powers of Congress, which include the power to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;". If you're suggesting that under the Constitution, Congress doesn't have the power to provide bailout money to private companies, you're gonna have to be much more specific in your constitutional references.

Milton Friedman?? Mr. Friedman wrote the neoconservative economic playbook for the systematic looting of nations. The idea is to wait for a country to be in a compromised position as a result of either a manmade or an environmental disaster, and then to loan much needed $$ to a country with strings attached - usually the lifting of labor/environmental regulations and any laws that prohibit metanational corporations from accessing and exploiting the national resources of the country. Once this is done, the neocons move in, suck the country dry and move on.

In the U.S., Mr. Friedman's policies were implemented courtesy of 9/11, which allowed the neocon Bush administration to start an illegal, for-profit war in which gozillions of your taxpayer dollars were funneled to private corporations and lots of good people, both American and Iraqi, died for nothing. Pisses me off, and it should piss you off too. Plus, the use of taxpayer money is essentially the same thing you're complaining about now, except that the purpose of the bailout money to companies like GM is largely to create/preserve jobs, not to enrich corporate interests. In any event, I'm not aware that Friedman ever wrote anything useful about rebuilding capitalist economies that are spiraling towards the drain. Usually by this point, Friedman and his cronies would have moved on to the next victim.

Re: any other "small-government/non/government" libertarian-type philiosophies you allude to above (i.e your reference to Hayek), the market was not going to fix itself in this instance. As I state in the article, we were in a death spiral: lost jobs = decreased spending = more lost jobs = more decreased spending = more lost jobs, etc.

Finally, I thought the piece was as even as it could be. TSP acknowledged that there could be some valid reasons for the tea parties but also pointed out that there was a rather extreme and at times unpleasant undercurrent to these parties as well. Re: the pics, never saw the pic of Palin in a noose nor any pics of Bush at any of these parties - if I had, I probably would have commented on those as well. I go out of my way to be evenhanded in my reporting. Given the information available to me when I wrote this, I'm not sure how the piece could have been more even-handed.

Hi All,
Article 1 Section 8
"The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Impost and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
For those who do not know Article 1 Section 8 continues but for today's class we will start here.
This says Congress can only spend money for two reasons. One-- pay the debts of the United States Two -- Common Defense and general welfare of the United States.
Under law Congress does not have the ability to spend any moneys beyond that.
Debt of the United States only.
Common Defense United States Military only Navy,Army, Marines and Air Force
General welfare-- national welfare and not for local or regional benefits. Light houses for general navigation. Other improvements for the nation as a whole not for individuals or states.
The First Congress refused to make a loan to a glass company saying it was unconstitutional.
Taxes must be uniform.-- Congress can not give a tax break for one company or group of people and not for another. In other words a flat tax for all. One person or persons can not pay 45% and another get a tax credit or pay no taxes at all. "95% of the people are getting a tax cut" So it is OK to screw 5%?? As long as YOU are not the 5%!

"Milton Friedman?? Mr. Friedman wrote the neoconservative economic playbook for the systematic looting of nations. The idea is to wait for a country to be in a compromised position as a result of either a manmade or an environmental disaster, and then to loan much needed $$ to a country with strings attached - usually the lifting of labor/environmental regulations and any laws that prohibit metanational corporations from accessing and exploiting the national resources of the country. Once this is done, the neocons move in, suck the country dry and move on."
Sounds like what is happening right now. Started under Mr. Bush and continued and expanded under Mr Obama.
As for the war. I am deeply upset with the money that has been wasted.
Mr Obama 87 Billion for Iraq. Afganistan 08 34 Billion 09 47 Billion
This is a war that if the "dogs of war" were unleashed could have been over in about two months. However Mr Bush said he was a Compassionate Conservative and would not allow it. Mr Obama has taken the same position. This has caused American lives lost and maimed forever and will cause more. For this there are no excuses.
There is only one way and reason to fight that is to WIN as quick and as fast as possible.
You have called this war illegal. I do not understand this statement. Congress and the U. N. both gave the go ahead. I do not believe we need the U.N. to tell us we can defend ourselves however this time the United States did ask and got permission. The last one being Iraq resolution 1441. Congress U.S House Joint Resolution 10/16/02 Please help walk me into the light.
I want to be very clear NO FOOL wants war.
However:
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those that do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." --- Albert Einstein
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." --- Thomas Paine
Thank you all for your time. I know I can upset the apple cart (of both parties) but if I can get the people thinking were is the harm in that?
May the GOD you pray to watch over you and yours.
Proud to be called an AMERICAN the land of milk and honey. Your milk your honey to do as you please not governments!!
Robert W. Horr

Rob:
Thanks for being more specific. Congress's power to spend taxpayer money on these bailouts is constitutional, per the broad "general welfare" clause in Art. I, Section 8, which I've quoted above. The Supreme Court has deferred to Congress to determine when spending is for "the general welfare of the United States" and to my knowledge no serious challenge has been made to any federal legislation on this basis since 1937.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 691 (1937), the Supreme Court entertained a challenge to the newly enacted Social Security Act (the "Act") brought by a shareholder in a Massachusetts corporation who sought to enjoin the corporation from paying the federal taxes due as a result of Title VIII of the Act. Section II of the Act, which provided for the appropriation of federal funds to make monthly "Federal Old-Age" payments to people over 65 provided certain conditions were met, was also challenged, as it was asserted that the taxes authorized under Title VIII were essentially going into the "Old-Age" benefits fund.

The Court found that Section II was not unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, as Congress had the power to spend money "in aid of the general welfare." With respect to the power of Congress to implement the Act, the Court stated as follows:

"Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."

Following up on this commentary, the Court more specifically addressed whether or not the provision of unemployment benefits was for the "general welfare," noting that Congress's concern was unemployment, one of the best justifications for a good deal of the bailout spending that many object to today:

"Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the wellbeing of the Nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

The purge of nationwide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from State to State, the hinterland now settled that, in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape . . . Spreading from State to State, unemployment is an ill not particular, but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today in the case of the Steward Machine Co., supra, has set the doubt at rest. But the ill is all one, or at least not greatly different, whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house, as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near."

Sound familiar? Helvering is still good law today, so any constitutional challenge to bailout spending is almost certain to fail.

With respect to your other libertarian-type comments, I hope you understand that big business interests in this country want government to butt out of the private sector, not so that you can exercise your constitutional rights, but so they can continue to run game on the rest of us. While it's true that the government can be just as corrupt as big business, at least we can seek recourse at the polls when our elected representatives betray the public trust. Exhibit A - the November 2008 elections. So, given a choice between big business and the government, I'll take the government. And make no mistake, that is our choice. Either government regulates big business or big business runs game on all of us, as they have done ad nauseum recently. So be careful what you wish for.

Hi All,
The United States Constitution was singed into law on September 17 1787. So lets see if I understand what you are saying T.D. ? Every General Welfare program was found unconstitutional for 150 years (1787-1937) and all those judges misunderstood the Constitution. The very people who were closest to the Framers and had direct contact with the times and understood the thinking of the time were wrong in their thinking and judgements.
So along comes 1937 and the Judges finally see the light. I think we need to take a look at what happened in 1937.
Every program Franklin Roosevelt and Congress put up was found to be unconstitutional until 1937. However Mr Roosevelt did not like this at all and decided to undermine the Court. First he proposed adding more judges to dilute the sitting judges by "court packing" but he could not get Congress to go along with it. So then he had Congress pass a law saying any Judge over 70 years old can retire with full pay and benefits. This was directly aimed at Judge Willis Van Devanter who took the deal and retired in June of 1937 . "The switch in time that saved nine ."
Mr Roosevelt wanted a "thumping evangelical New Dealer." he found him in the Senate.
A fellow Democrat Hugo Black. Black was a very strong supporter of the "new deal " and was easily confirmed. Judge Black was the first of nine by Mr. Roosevelt.
With Mr. Roosevelt new judges the court was forever radically changed. From that time forward the Supreme Court became a political arm of the President undermining the Constitution. Today no judge is confirmed unless their views are in line with the politics of the day. Rule of law does not matter. Judges are no longer picked because they have studied the Constitution but weather or not they are in line with the wishes of Congress and the President. If you disagree watch how many times the killing of babies is brought up or other social engineering politics with this new judge to be appointed by Mr Obama.
Not to change the subject but how come the very people who support your views on General welfare but do not believe ..."that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness ."
How come the word Life does not mean Life or ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed." The word infringed does not mean infringed. I am always amused how people pick what they like and defend it but another part they don't; saying "well they didn't mean that"
As for Social Security ,It is one of the biggest scams Congress has run on the citizens of the United States. 15% of every dollar you make goes to them and then they change the rules as to who and when you can maybe get some of your money back. If Social Security was and is such a good deal why does every government employee vote to get out of it and have their own plane ie Congress the President and the Post office. Social Security was stated to keep the elderly out of the "poor house" Now we do not call them a poor house it is now called "Public housing" or" the projects". Congress has done nothing but steal your money for their own projects and to buy votes." To send money back home."
"There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views." Ya like the ones who wrote the Constitution and others who were in the room. To say " this is now settled by decision " I could not disagree more!! This writing shows this and I am not alone.
As far as having to deal with a evil big company I can very easily take my money some place else. If I do not like G.M. I can go buy a Toyota. As shown by the move the American people have done. But oh NO along comes Big Government and forces me and you to give them Billions or if I do not like doing business with Citi Bank I can move my account to a local bank or credit union but NO! big government says I must give them Trillions because they made bad loans, that the government forced them to make and now we must pay for them. If I do not like Wall-Mart I can go someplace else. There are no laws yet to stop me. There is no way to keep big government out of my life . They have a hand in everything I do,from conception to death.
You tell me I can easily get rid of politicians I do not like. Then how do I get rid of a man like Stephen Friedman who has illegally made millions with your bail out money as New York Fed chairman. 1.7 million in 2 1/2 months. More hope and change?
Today May 7,2009 in The Wall Street Journal : Banks need $67 Billion
in billions
Bank of America $ 34
Wells Fargo 15
GMAC 11.5
Citigroup 5.0
Regions Financials ??
State Street ??
Does anyone want to look and see who gave money to who's campaigns. Don't worry both parties hands are VERY DIRTY !! You know that these banks will be back for more and more just like the auto industry
I could go on and on however this is enough for now. Make no mistake I stand for Individual FREEDOM a small government is a good government. My views are my own.
Proud to be called an American
Robert W. Horr

So, this is very "deep" but fails to address the real life or lives of people, especially the self-employed.
1. taxed on income
2. taxed on others income
3. up to 30% of income taxed on for social and medicare.
4. taxed on unemployment but owner can not collect.
5. taxed on assets of the business yearly even after paying the sales TAX to purchase.
6. taxes on sales, which is collected but now has to administer and keep track of.
And now soon to be taxed on the health insurance my business buys for me.
These are just the business taxes
Personal
1. Sales Tax
2. Property Tax
3. Excise Tax every year on cars/trucks
4. New Tax on Services in state of Maine
5. Federal Income Tax
6. State Income Tax
am I forgetting any.

I attended a Tea Party in Augusta. It was NOTHING like the media protrayed on national news. It was informative, educational, and realistic. As with anything there were a sign or two on the fringe, but they were quickly boo off the platform. Most of the people were using our right to protest and gather for an intelligent cause. I have been self-employed for over 30 years. I have paid enough taxes!!!! Next time you see a self employed person they ought to be thanked as they are the engine of this economy and we never get bailed out....but I wouldn't want to. Would rather be a hungry free man than a well fed slave.