Why Tolerate an Unelected Congress?


This is an apt beginning to the political coup the opponents of Obama have feared...the convening of an unelected Congress. It should be stopped, its actions are not valid, including anything it passes.

You’d think it’s pretty obvious that if we had a Congress that was unelected, people be outraged. We are a constitutional republic, and our legislators should be elected.

And yet, that is what we have right now.

This “lame duck Congress” is not our elected set of legislators. In fact, not only are they not the ones we elected, they are the ones we specifically un-elected.

And that is outrageous.

You there, in the back, who just yelled out “But it’s always been that way”…yes, I saw who you were. Don’t worry, dissent is imperative to learning the truth.

And the truth is that lame duck Congresses are rare, because they are so obviously bad.

A Congress that is unelected, with members whose ideas have already been voted against, rushing those evils through a back door to lock them into place.

We specifically elected DIFFERENT politicians. The guys passing bills they know we oppose right now are, in effect, usurpers.

And, although there have rarely been lame duck Congresses before, this may be the first one that is specifically intended to violate the will of the people. Up until now, lame duck sessions are usually held NOT to pass laws the People are known to have just disapproved, but for a unique emergency, like impeachment, or the McCarthy hearings ostensibly to root out Communists.

But this political coup…and it is a coup, same as if the Army showed up in Congress with tanks one day and “temporarily” ousted the government…is unusual, because it’s all about passing new expansions of government that could not possibly get through next session:

  • A massive expansion of the FDA’s powers
  • Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
  • Gays in the Military
  • An unpopular arms treaty
  • A massive expansion in the already-overextended unemployment subsidy

All of these are important issues, that should be considered by our elected representatives, if by the Federal government at all.

Yet they’re being railroaded through by the corrupt Establishment on both sides. The Political Class have been carefully quiet about this, but we should not be. They think they can violate our will, for their own good…but it is intolerable.

As with the TEA Party backlash against the past three years of massive government expansion, we need to “rise up” and organize an objection to this coup, and stop it from continuing to seize power unconstitutionally.

The Anti-Jobs Bill: Tax Breaks for Welfare Jobs


If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

Drug mega-giant Pfizer recently dealt with its bloated payroll in St Louis, Missouri, by laying off over 600 employees.

It had hired them in order to gain reduced tax punishment from the local government. It was given a “break” of almost seven million dollars on the massive property tax, in return for hiring over one thousand employees…apparently more than it would otherwise have chosen to hire, or else the “break” would have been a meaningless loss of revenue for a money-strapped government.

Maintaining make-work welfare jobs, of course, was just a needless burden on the company. Eventually, such government coercion contributed enough to its woes that Pfizer actually found it necessary to lay off over half of its staff. In all likelihood, this backlash resulted in fewer jobs left-over than if it hadn’t over-hired to begin with.

When the government “encourages” hiring, it creates an employment bubble, just like when it encouraged home ownership, it created a housing bubble. When the bubble bursts, the net result is more harm than good, just as with housing.

Government “stimulating jobs” causes even more job loss, in the long run.

And yet Congress is about to pass a “jobs bill” that involves tax breaks for make-work hiring. Companies will be pushed to employ people they wouldn’t have otherwise chosen to do, essentially being forced to live beyond their means. In the long run, as with the housing boom and with Pfizer, this will backfire and cause MORE unemployment.

When the government “creates” a job, it’s just engaging in another form of welfare. A job “created” where one wasn’t actually needed has no honor, and causes harm. It is a burden on society…one that will come back to haunt, just the way the stimulus spending, bailouts, and other government busybody behavior will do.

The way to create jobs is not to “create” them directly, any more than you make sickly person healthy by giving him cocaine to create energy. Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They work because people work to create more wealth than their job pays, justifying its existence. What we need is more wealth creation, and then the jobs will come naturally. And what is stifling job creation, already, is massive government regulation and interference, including the “stimulus” spending that out-competes healthy private ventures.

Bunning (Almost) Fights Unemployment


When you subsidize anything, you get more of that thing. Including unemployment.
I have a friend who got fed up with his job, and gave it up because he felt collecting unemployment was a better option. This, alone, is evidence of how unemployment benefits increase unemployment…but it gets worse:

He eventually got tired of not working at all, and got a job one day a week, just low enough not to cut into his unemployment benefit.

Here comes the “worse” part.

His employer liked him, and kept begging him to work full time…but he planned to kick back and relax until unemployment ran out. That’s right, benefits not only caused him to CHOOSE to be unemployed, but to refuse to take a full-time job, keeping him on the unemployment roles. But at least it would eventually run out…right?

  • Then Bush and Congress decided to extend it.
  • Then, when it was about to run out (again), Obama and Congress extended it once more. My friend has ended up living off the taxpayers, indefinitely, while his employer dreams of GIVING him full time work.
  • Then Jim Bunning decided my friend must go back to work. His employer must have been thrilled.

Not that Bunning is a principled Conservative, who believes in not subsidizing unemployment. No, he is just a partisan RiNO grandstanding against unfunded government spending…now that Bush isn’t the one spearheading it.

Which may be why he caved in, just a short time later. My friend gets to remain a burden on society, unemployment gets to remain artificially high.

Ever wonder how much of the 10% unemployment is simply people who CHOOSE not to work, because the government subsidizes not working?

What we need is more people in Congress who are actually like Jim Bunning was pretending, for a few hours, to be.

%d bloggers like this: