What do we hear Democrats talking about right now?
The need to spend trillions of dollars on "human infrastructure".
The need to continue the moratorium on rent and repayment of student loan debt.
The need to raise taxes on "the rich".
Of course, we have also seen inflation spike as a result of the infusion of printed money created by the Federal Reserve to cover the debt caused by trillions of dollars in stimulus and Covid-related spending over the last year.
The moratorium on evictions has gotten the most publicity in the last couple of days as the CDC imposed moratorium expired on July 31.
I am still at a loss as how anyone thought that a bunch of unelected bureaucrats at the CDC had the authority and power to decide that renters did not have to pay legally owed rent to their landlords in the first place?
How could something like that be done under our Constitution without it being voted on by our elected representatives?
The Supreme Court obviously agreed since it ruled in June that the CDC lacked the legal authority to do what it did.
However, in a sign of the times we live in, the Supreme Court did not rule that the CDC moratorium should be repealed retroactively. It merely ruled that the CDC did not have the authority to do it again once the current moratorium expired on July 31.
The Court stated that if it was going to be extended again it was the responsibility of Congress to pass a law to do it.
Nancy Pelosi tried to persuade the Democrat-controlled House to pass an extension but she could not find the votes before their August recess.
 |
| Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-scrambles-extend-eviction-moratorium-saturday-expiration-n1275485 |
In another sign of the times, having failed to get the necessary votes, Nancy Pelosi then urged Joe Biden to just ignore the law, the Supreme Court and the Constitution, and extend the moratorium anyway.
In rare discord with his own party, Biden faced new pressure to act after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders on Sunday urged the White House to extend the moratorium despite legal concerns.
To his credit, Biden stated he did not have that power.
Over the past year, the CDC extended the moratorium meant to help Americans struggling to pay rent during the pandemic three times. But the White House now says only Congress can extend the evictions freeze after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the CDC overstepped its authority when it created the policy.
However, that may not matter in the end. Recent reports indicate Biden may move ahead anyway with a revised program. So much for the rule of the law. It seems that this is a recurring pattern with Democrats. Look no further than enforcement of immigration law if you have any doubts about that.
If this is done it is another typical Democrat maneuver. If you don't like the law, just ignore it. If you later get slapped down by the courts, so what?
Can you imagine if a Republican said something like this?
 |
| Source: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1422610289225256964 |
Of course, the moratorium does not forgive the renter of the rental payments. It merely gives them a limited reprieve. However, the longer the moratorium goes on it is obvious it will be harder for the renter to make up all the past due payments. We are now talking about a year of missed payments.
How many people are going to be in position to make up these rent payments?
Therefore, it clear that the end game here is to have the rent payments forgiven. In fact, Congress already included $46.5 billion for rental assistance in one of the earlier Covid relief packages for state and local governments to distribute for that purpose.
It is just another example of what could have been considered a well-meaning program that in the end will create another cycle of dependency that will undoubtedly do more harm than good.
It also shows no respect for the property rights of the landlords who are not being compensated and yet have bills to pay themselves--mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, maintenance and the like.
I find it interesting that I have not seen where any government entity that has been willing to provide a moratorium on property taxes on any real estate subject to the renter's moratorium.
It is also interesting looking at the issues that the Democrats care most about are the same as those that James Madison and the Founders described as "wicked and improper projects" in Federalist Paper #10.
In that Federalist Paper , Madison explained why the Founders established a representative republic form of government rather than a democracy or parliamentary system.
The Founders understood that opposing political factions were the greatest potential threat to any government and that in many governments the only redress was violence. They wanted to insure that factions could not wield power that would be dangerous to either the rights of other citizens or the common good. What did they see as the most common and tangible source of faction? The conflict between rich and poor. Here are the exact words from #10 published on November 22, 1787.
The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
Where did they see the most danger for a majority to trample on the rights of a minority? Taxation.
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
They understood that those that governed us had to be a cut above to balance and mediate these conflicting interests and put the public interest above any special interests. However, they also knew that this was naive. A modern translation puts it this way.
Enlightened statesmen will not always be in power, and even if such mediation could happen, it would rarely take place with long-term interests in mind, since the immediate "here and now" interests of the party in power would most likely win the day at the expense of the rights of the other party, or the good of the whole.
Our Founding Fathers were one smart group.
It is as if they knew exactly how political games could be played to the detriment of individual rights and the long-term interests of the nation.
They also knew that there was little they could do to prevent factions from occurring. That could only be done by limiting liberties or insuring every citizen has the same opinions, feelings and the same interests. Neither was acceptable to the Founders.
They had no interest in preventing the causes, which is what Communist and Totalitarian governments do. They focused on controlling the effects of factions. Thus, they constructed a republican governmental framework with an ultimate goal of securing both the public good and private rights against the dangers of an oppressive majority faction. Everything in the Constitution was built on this foundational principle.
Perhaps most applicable today is what Federalist #10 says in the second to last paragraph.
There could not be a better example to show how far we have deviated from the path the Founders established and why they set up safeguards in the Constitution to protect the People.
It reads as follows with the bold emphasis being mine:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
How much more relevant can you be to what we are seeing today in what the Democrats want to do?
The Founders found all of these to be "improper or wicked projects"by dangerous factions. These were the very types of government abuses they were trying to prevent.
A rage for paper money (the Democrats want to pass an endless number of trillion dollar spending bills funded by nothing more than debt facilitated by money printed by the Federal Reserve)
Calls for an abolition of debt (what do the Democrats want to do with rental payments and student loan debt?)
Calls for an equal division of property (the Democrats continually want to redistribute income and wealth through a focus on taxing the rich and promising to not do anything to anyone else)
James Madison called all of these "improper and wicked". Those are pretty strong words.
Is it any wonder that the Democrats also want to disparage the Founders and the Constitution at every turn these days?
I think our Founders knew how the game would be played well over 230 years ago.
They knew what improper and wicked projects were.
They knew how dangerous the people were who promoted such projects.
Why then don't more people understand that today when it is occurring right in front of us?
No comments:
Post a Comment