In The Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Constitution and Subsidies

As I read and think about the various tweets from my great followers on twitter and believe me when I say that I value each and every one of them I have to wonder if some of my follower have, like a number of “conservative” talking heads and political candidates, have gotten so numb to various government programs that they don’t even stop and consider whether it is within the limits of the responsibilities of the federal government as outlined and SPELLED out within the Constitution.

It is not my intention to bash or degrade any particular GOP candidate or any particular follower on twitter.

I will paraphrase certain things and point out where what I consider errors in reference to Constitution. If I’m in error, I’m sure someone will correct me.

With a vast number of people watching the unfolding events in Iowa between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, either which could possibly get a boost by winning the caucus.

To this end, Mr. Trump has gotten what many “talking heads” may consider a very important endorsement.

No it was not Sarah Palin, but the so called conservative governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad.

Why did Gov. Branstad endorse Mr. Trump?

Was it because he believes that Trump is the best candidate for America?

I don’t think so!

I feel that Gov. Branstad endorsed Mr. Trump mainly because the governor is against Sen. Cruz’s stand on the ethanol subsidy and to some extend subsidies in general after Senator Cruz said:

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers. I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that’s how we got in this problem to begin with.”

To which Gov. Branstad replied:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels," Branstad said, according to the paper. "I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him." 

Now, I don’t blame Gov. Branstad for doing what he feels is best for his state, IF he didn’t, I would join Iowans in removing him from office. BUT like a number of laws and programs out of District of Corruption, they have been passed, put in place and taken for granted that they are okay. Why hasn’t anyone stopped and even considered their constitutionality?

When I posed this question on twitter, one of my followers said:

“They are acts of Congress not the Constitution. Congress makes law.”

To this I asked two simple questions, and it’s the same questions I have been asking for years on many other subjects:

“Isn’t congress supposed to make and pass laws that is within the authority of the Constitution? And just where is ANY subsidies authorized by the Constitution?”

Just where in the Constitution does it say that:

"Money paid, usually by GOVERNMENT, to keep PRICES below what they would be in a free market, or to keep alive businesses that would otherwise go bust, or to make activities happen that otherwise would not take place. Subsidies can be a form of PROTECTIONISM by making domestic goods and SERVICES artificially competitive against IMPORTS. By distorting markets, they can impose large economic costs."

This is the same question I asked Mr. Trump and Mr. Branstad on twitter? Did I get a reply, NO! In fact, I didn’t get anyone who supports Mr. Trump defending his stand on ethanol subsidies.

On the other side of the coin, I have to offer Ted Cruz, I offer this piece of advice. When talking about the corn subsidy or subsidies in general, just point out the fact that NO where in the Constitution does the federal government have any right to, as Mr. Cruz said, 

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers.”

In fact, if Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump would have looked at history and see what a little known member of the FIRST congress, James Madison, had to say when confronted with a vote on what would be the first subsidy:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” 

How many  “conservatives” were outraged & complained about the subsidies or bailouts to the auto industry which Mr. Trump supported in 2008? How were outraged and complainted about the subsidies to solar panel manufacturers? How about the tax money spent to study shrimp on treadmills?

ARE you one who complains about the waste of the many government handouts and programs?

Do you favor corn subsidies or any subsidies in general including government funding of schools?

If the answer is YES to the first question and NO to the second, then how can you look in the mirror and say you believe in the Constitution? Or do you, as many others do, just take it for granted that that's the government job.

Maybe it is, but not under our Constitutional Republic, but under a government where the elected officials believe in and follow an 1848 publication by Karl Marx or the 1908 American Socialist's party platform as a guide.

In the Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Hype and the Constitution

As I look out the window, seeing the reflection of the moonlight off the dew like tiny fairy lights I begin to reflect how high America has soared and how far America has fallen.

I reach for my coffee and half listen to the television in the back ground, the normal fair, candidates saying this and that, all of making promises that IF people take a minute and think about, should say, “Wait a minute, that’s sounds good but how is it going to be done in four or maybe eight years. How is it going to be accomplished within the scope and limitations of that forgotten document, the Constitution?”

I’m like every other educated, patriotic American, I am watching the GOP presidential candidates with great interest, however unlike many people, I have yet to support any particular candidate though there are a few, that I can not bring myself to even consider for one reason or another, that is strictly my opinion and will not waste your valuable time.

Looking at the candidates that I am considering, I see a number who have what I would call a cult following, in fact a supporter of one in particular, basically accused me of being a troll, when I asked some very pointed questions and even referenced history.

This person even pointed me to a Twit-longer piece she posted and like everyone should I took the time and courtesy to read it. After reading it I noticed one IMPORTANT item missing, there was absolutely no reference to the Constitution.

With all of the campaign promises made, not one that I’ve heard as even mention that they will do anything according to the Constitution.

That same supporter mentioned that their favorite candidate is a great negotiator and will make America rich again by negotiating “great” deals. I must ask, “Doesn’t this require the legislative branch to approve any deals that regulate commerce with foreign nations?”

Another question that needs to be asked, “How can any POTUS be a great jobs president?” Doesn’t it take congress to pass constitutional laws dealing with taxes, trade etc. or are we to be subject to more of a pen and telephone.

Now, I have also heard a candidate say in the debate back in November say, and I’ll paraphrase, that he wouldn’t be involved in any conflicts in the Middle East, seeing that the money would be better spent on roads and bridges, hospitals and schools. Now again I have ask, just where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the authority to spend tax payer’s money for hospitals and schools. Look hard and if you find it let me know.

Needless to say when all else fails the sure vote getter is support of our military and veterans, and yes being a veteran this hits close home.

Now, the cult follower of one candidate, says, “Our Veterans have been betrayed and discarded by the U.S. government.” YES they have, but it seems that what is forgotten is that it is the people who elected the government who have forgotten the veterans. In fact if I remember correctly, wasn’t it a big issue in the 2014 election? Did anything change?

In fact, there has a long and sorted history of incompetence and waste within Veterans Administration, YET nothing has or will change.

What about the military? Again all funding for the military MUST come out of congress and congress has betrayed the Americans who put them in their positions and passed a trillion plus dollars funding bill, which will remain in effect for two years and thus, short of congress taking action, the military budget is set for two years. Now, just how is the POTUS to improve our military? By cutting funds in one area and moving them to another? Firing people?

Another candidate, one that I am seriously considering is spending a lot of time in Iowa. During his various stops, he is plagued by those who are against any action that may cut or eliminate subsidies for corn used in the production of ethanol.

This candidate stated he is against all subsidies, and I applaud him for that, but he neglected to mention, yep you guessed it, that NO where in the Constitution is the use of tax payer’s money to provide “a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.” There is an exception and that is if the senate authorizes, “a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.”

In fact, one of the first acts after the passage of the Bill of Rights in the first congress was a bill to pay the cod fishermen a bounty, or to basically subsidize a private interest.

James Madison spoke out against this bill, stating that those who wrote the Constitution and those who ratified it did not conceive that it would not be an indefinite Government, but a limited one saying:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

To the good people of Iowa, I have one question, How can you be in favor of the Constitution, yet at the same time accept other tax payer’s money, redistribution of wealth, to raise crops?

To everyone out there, I will not tell you who support, BUT I will ask you that as you listen to rhetoric from the candidates, listen with one eye on the Constitution and as they make their promises, ask yourself, “Where is it authorized in the Constitution?”