U.S. Won’t Default If Congress Fails to Raise Debt Ceiling  

John McCormack at The Weekly Standard:

“Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States,” wrote Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earlier this year. No, that’s not true, say Republicans. There’s enough federal revenue to pay the interest on the debt as well as fund the troops and entitlement programs.

Classic liberal fear mongering. This is on par with the false dichotomy presented by Obama when he suggested that we either fix the corporate jet tax “loophole” or tell kids they can’t go to college. 1

“It all depends on what you mean by default. I don’t even want to get into the labeling contest,” BPC’s Jay Powell told me in an interview. “It is clear that there is enough cash coming in to let you pay interest on the debt. That is a true fact.”

If I recall correctly, The US Government pulls in about $200 billion in revenue every month. Surely we can service the debt with that. We might have to cut a few things, but aren’t spending cuts the only sustainable fix to this endless debt cycle we are in?

  1. There is no such thing as a tax loophole. There are laws which allow people to take advantage of tax cuts. When someone doesn’t like a tax law they call it a loophole. Ironically, the corporate jet tax deduction was actually re-implemented by Obama himself.
 |  |

It’s Been 800 Days Since the Senate Passed a Budget  

Kate Havard at The Weekly Standard:

“It’s really incredible” said Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind., a member of the House Budget Committee, “Democrats don’t get it. They either have trouble figuring out their priorities or they don’t want to reveal them to the American public.  Instead we just get criticism for our plan, which is the only comprehensive plan out there.”

It’s tough to take the Democrats’ criticism seriously when they haven’t proposed anything except for “let’s borrow more money”. I give Young a lot of credit here for bringing attention to the obvious question: are the Democrats really being honest about their true motives? If your family has mountains of debt and you suggest borrowing money as a way to fix it, what does that say about your motives?

 |  |

Let’s get this “democracy” thing straight

I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter about democracy lately, and I wonder if most people know what a democracy is. First, let’s clear one thing up with the terminology: democracy has multiple meanings.

There’s democracy as a social concept. In this context we’re talking about social and political equality. In America we have a slew of examples: everyone has the right to vote, speak freely, et cetera (note that you can lose these rights: felons for example, generally can not vote, but everyone starts out in life with the same set of rights).

Then there is democracy as a form of government. Let’s talk about this:

While there isn’t a specific definition that’s accepted universally, we can loosely define it in a way most people understand and agree upon. Democracies come in two main forms. There are pure democracies (or direct democracies) in which the people directly execute the tasks of government, and there are representative democracies, where the people elect other citizens to execute the tasks of government.

You might think that the political system in place in the United States is a representative democracy, and you would be very wrong. Although a lot of people would agree with you. Some people really, really wish that America was a democracy. Let’s take a closer look:

There are some very important implications attached to democracy. In a true democracy, the majority is omnipotent. Some would call this tyranny by majority. The important thing to note here is that if fifty percent of the people (plus one) decide something, then the other fifty percent (minus one) are bound to it. If you don’t see how this could be dangerous, well spend some time thinking about it and do some research.

Think about this:

  • The majority can confiscate a person’s property.
  • The majority can decide only certain people can vote.
  • The majority can pass laws about who can speak freely.
  • The majority can decide to get rid of elections all together, or impose negative consequences for voting for the opposition.
  • The majority can take political prisoners.

These are just a few examples. I’m sure you can think of a hundred more. You may have noticed already, but a democracy relies on the majority having “good hearts” and restraining itself from tyrannizing the minority. This is a terrible idea. Some people are evil, it’s just part of life, and evil people tend to seek positions of power.

What would happen if the majority form a party, and then pass a law making it illegal to oppose that party? This is essentially what happened in the 1950s and 1960s in many African countries that were experimenting with democracy.

I remind you that a lot of dictatorships literally meet the definition of a democracy. Iraq under Saddam Hussein met the definition of a representative democracy. Elections were held and the people elected Saddam Hussein. Yes people were rightfully scared for their lives if they voted any other way. That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make about democracies.

Democracy as a form of government is often a terrible, horrible, institution. The idea behind democracy is that universal suffrage is essential for freedom. The problem is this is only part true. Universal suffrage is absolutely necessary for freedom, but that’s not all.

The founders of the United States created a form of government called a Constitutional Republic1. It had never been tried before and clearly it changed the world. A constitutional republic shares some concepts in common with a representative democracy (universal suffrage for example), but it’s actually the opposite of democracy (as a form of government, we’re not talking about the social idea) in a lot of ways.

Democracy is based on an omnipotent majority. A constitutional republic strictly controls the majority. In the United States, the constitution provides a set of limits on the majority (the majority do elect the representatives in government). It is based on the axiom that each individual has certain rights which are inherent (given to each person by their Creator). The government (or anyone else) can not obstruct those rights.

So, next time you hear someone (politicians especially) throwing around the word “democracy” (especially when touting it as a great form of government), ask them what they mean exactly. You’ll be surprised what you hear. Stay sharp.

  1. There is a whole lot of disagreement about the meaning of the words “democracy”, “republic”, et cetera. Above are my interpretations. I will point out that the United States could be defined as a Republican Democracy, meaning it is a republic which has democratically elected leaders. Then again, it’s just more accurate to refer to it as a Constitutional Republic.
 |  |

Judiciary Committee Probes Kagan’s Involvement in Obamacare  

Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News:

The inquiry will look at whether Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from judging cases challenging President Obama’s health-care law and whether her answers to questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process were accurate.

This is the sane way to pursue this. Unlike the Democrats who just demanded a recusal—with weaker justification—the Republicans are approaching this in a rational manner. Doing a proper investigation and evaluating Kagan’s obligation to existing recusal laws. It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

 |  |

Mexican Official Wants ATF Workers to Face Charges in Mexico  

Buck Sexton at The Blaze:

The fallout from the ATF’s “Operation Fast and Furious” (or “project gunrunner) — the failed plan to allow guns to “walk” into Mexico — continues unabated.

Mexican Senator Reno Arce Islas, the Chairman of Mexico’s Commission for National Security said the following:

“They should be tried in the United States, and the Mexican government should also demand that they also be tried in Mexico since the incidents took place here. There should be trials in both places.”

Surprisingly, I agree with this Mexican official. Picture this situation reversed, where Mexican officials started a program to allow guns to fall into the hands of US criminals so they could “track them”. I would absolutely want to put those officials on trial in the US. What the BATFE and Eric Holder’s DOJ are doing with this project is disgraceful.

Having said that, Mexico really needs to clean up their own act before they start spouting off stuff like this. For example, they have some of the strictest immigration law, yet they gladly encourage their citizens (particularly criminals) to illegally cross the border into this country.

 |  |