Category: Politics

Clem,

Thank you for your phone call. Since you desire to carry on our correspondence by phone, and not by e-mail I wanted to let you know that you can contact me at ***-***-****. I have your phone number on your business card you gave me so I will take advantage of contacting you when I want to toss some ideas around.

I want to clear up my actions as to why I have posted these exchanges publicly. I have posted these publicly because like many Americans I am completely exasperated with our political process. All attempts, by historic Americans like myself, to be taken seriously by their elected officials are completely pleonastic as revealed in the phoniness of form letters received back or as revealed in the patronizing that occurs when one phones the respective Congress offices. I realize that this is not your fault and that my publicly posting these exchanges likely means that I forfeit whatever input I may have had with you, but frankly I am at the point, as a citizen of this great country, of being exasperated beyond my ability to articulate with what our Federal Government and its representatives are doing.

You mentioned that you thought that the second Sowell article,

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274020/pyrrhic-victory-thomas-sowell#

did not contend, as I believe, that Dr. Sowell had reversed himself on his initial support on the debt ceiling bill as put forth at this link,

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072911.php3

I promised I would go back and re-examine the article and I have. Allow me to pull snippets from the second Sowell article that reveal that Dr. Sowell did indeed reverse himself on his support of the Bill that Congressman Walberg egregiously supported.

First, Dr. Sowell starts by titling the article, “Pyrrhic Victory.”

Now we both realize that a Pyrrhic victory is by definition, a victory that is won by incurring terrible losses. Should we believe that Dr. Sowell in his first article was advocating supporting something he knew ahead of time would be a victory that is won by incurring terrible losses only to turn around in the subsequent column and lament the Pyrrhic victory, and that without having changed his mind? To think so stretches credulity.

Second, the subtitle of Sowell’s article is,

“The budget deal turns out to have been a defeat for Republicans.”

Notice that Dr. Sowell uses the phrase, “turns out,” which clearly suggests that it turned out differently than he had hoped unless one believes that Dr. Sowell would have been supporting, in his first column, a bill that he knew beforehand would be a “defeat for Republicans.” Why would Dr. Sowell have supported a bill that he knew beforehand would be a defeat for Republicans? Clearly, this concession on the part of Dr. Sowell’s that “the budget deal turns out to have been a defeat for Republicans,” is an admission that his initial support for the bill that the Republicans supported was errant.

As the article unfolds we read,

“To a remarkable extent, he (Obama) has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans’ failure to articulate their case.”

Here we see Dr. Sowell faulting Republicans (including Congressman Walberg?), once again. Are we to believe that Sowell, in his first column was supporting the Republicans’ failure to articulate their case or is this yet another example of Sowell conceding that his support in his previous column was a mistake in light of the Republican failure to articulate their case? We need to ask here if Dr. Sowell would have supported the Republican position if he knew in advance that the Republicans would fail to articulate their case.

Sowell closes with these two paragraphs

“Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had — and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.”

These last two paragraphs seals that my reading of Sowell is correct and that Sowell really is giving a mea culpa for his earlier support for the Republican deal that Congressman Walberg supported. I don’t know how any other reading of Sowell’s article except my reading could be considered a fair reading of Dr. Sowell’s words.

Sowell is lamenting that the Republicans were maneuvered into this Politburo Super Congress with the consequence that they are now going to either go along “with whatever new spending and taxing the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.” Now, again Clem, we have to ask ourselves if Dr. Sowell would have been supporting the Republican deal, as he did in the first column under question, if he had knew in advance that this maneuvering, that he laments in this column, was going to be the result of the first deal he now regrets supporting. Again, it stretches credulity to read this column as anything but a regret for earlier support of the Republicans voting to raise the debt ceiling.

Now that I’ve revisited the article under question as I promised, I’m open to your phoning me with your insistence of how I am misreading Dr. Sowell. In the end, Republican support for the deal that was passed was a colossal mistake as Dr. Sowell makes clear in his article. I can only hope that Congressman Walberg will reverse himself just as Dr. Sowell has.

Thank you for your continued collegiality.

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christian Reformed Church

Ryan Boeskool
Legislative Aide — Rep. Tim Walberg

Dear Ryan,

Below find a article written by a Constitutional Scholar and a gentleman who served in the Reagan administration. This pertains to our brief discussion on the potential problems with the constitutionality of the recent legislative action in connection with the creation of a Supreme US Congressional structure in order to consider budgetary issues.

Cheers,

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christian Reformed Church

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_budget_control_act_of_2011_violates_constitutional_order.html

Bret,

The basic response from academia appears to be thus:

http://justenrichment.com/2011/08/04/the-constitutionality-of-the-super-congress/

“The Super Congress doesn’t have the power to do anything absent Congressional approval. Your representative government created the Super Congress, and your representative government will vote its proposals up or down.”

The most compelling reasons for the constitutionality of the act from this legal review are as follows:

The Constitutionality of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Established by the Recent Debt Ceiling Act)

1. Article I, § 5 of the Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings.” This is the basis for how a wide variety of Congressional decisions are delegated in the first instance to committees, and how some matters are delegated to joint committees. And the Act makes clear that, “The provisions of this title are enacted by Congress … as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they specifically apply.”

3. Of course, the rules made by the Houses at one point may be changed later, and the Act acknowledges this: “The provisions of this title are enacted by Congress … with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.” It might be politically difficult to go back on the fast-track system created by the Act — just as it’s politically difficult to cut back on the filibuster in the Senate, another example of an important feature of our political system that’s created by a Rule of one of the Houses — and I think the authors of the Act wanted that to be politically difficult. But that doesn’t make the rule change unconstitutional.

Thoughts?

Ryan

Ryan Boeskool
Legislative Aide — Rep. Tim Walberg

Ryan,

Thank you for responding.

I apologize if I ever communicated that I thought that counter-arguments were not possible regarding the unconstitutionality of the Super-Congress arrangement. Clearly there are counter arguments. There are always counter arguments, and sometimes those very feeble counter arguments win the day such in the Roe vs. Wade case or the ridiculous rulings on the Commerce clause or the rulings that have given us the doctrine of incorporation.

The problem with this quote you provided,

“The Super Congress doesn’t have the power to do anything absent Congressional approval. Your representative government created the Super Congress, and your representative government will vote its proposals up or down.”

is that the Super Congress obviates the ability of local Congressman to offer amendments and of US Senators to filibuster legislation. Such a Super Congress makes the rest of the Congress, excepting party leadership, largely superfluous window-dressing. Now I quite agree that “each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings,” but I do not agree that Congress can un-Congress itself in favor of a Politburo Congress. Such a action is unconstitutional.

On another related issue to Rep. Walbergs recent Coffee gathering is this article by Thomas Sowell.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274020/pyrrhic-victory-thomas-sowell#

You will, no doubt, remember that Rep. Walberg put great stock in parading that Thomas Sowell agreed with him on his woeful debt ceiling vote. Well, as the above article reveals, Sowell has reversed himself on the wisdom of that vote.

Has Rep. Walberg reversed himself likewise on his vote for this woeful legislation or does he now think that Dr. Sowell is wrong?

Thank you again for the conversation.

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christian Reformed Church

This morning I, along with 40 or so other Charlotte citizens met w/ Congressman Tim Walberg who serves Congressional District #7 in Michigan. In a question and answer format I had a opportunity to politely but directly challenge the Congressman on his most recent vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling and expanding the US debt by at least 7 Trillion dollars to our debt over the next 10 years. We had a full and frank exchange of ideas where I reminded him that with the Republican passage of this debt ceiling the Republican promise to afford the Citizenry three days to review all legislation was violated. I told him I was disappointed in the Republicans and in him and asked him why those more fiscally conservative then him were wrong for voting against the debt ceiling increase. He explained that, “there were good conservatives on both sides,” while invoking a Thomas Sowell article to justify his vote.

I told him, Thomas Sowell being a conservative Economist, is no guarantee that Thomas Sowell is not in error on this. I left it alone after he insisted again that there were good conservatives on both sides. On the issue of Republicans breaking their 2010 campaign vow to never pass legislation without giving the citizenry three days to review the legislation Walberg responded in a two fold fashion.

First, Rep. Walberg said they had to break their word since they were up against the 02 August deadline. When reminded that the deadline was artificial Rep. Walberg insisted that it was not artificial. Informed citizens at the meeting knew that statement either reflected Congressman Walberg’s unfamiliarity with the facts on the ground or that this as dissimulation on the part of Congressman Walberg.

Second, Walberg said that we should be pleased that in seven months this was the first time the promise was broken. Apparently Congressman Walberg thinks that the citizenry should be happy when politicians only openly lie once in seven months. Keep in mind that these kinds of promises are only of any value when they are kept at the point that it is the most difficult to keep them. Any scofflaw can keep a promise when it is easy to keep.

From Congressman Walberg’s statement it seems that Republicans are thinking that stopping Obama in 2012 is the only thing that can be done to halt Obama now. They voted for raising the debt ceiling in the end because they were fearful that even if they were in the right in voting against the debt increase they would have been blamed, rightly or wrongly,for the debacle that may have ensued. In the end Boehner, Walberg and the Republicans caved because they believed that their re-election was more likely if they caved then if they refused to cave. In an attempt to win in the next election, which they think will be the silver bullet to stem Obamanomics they surrendered this time around.

I also asked Congressman Walberg to explain his statement that talk radio (he specifically mentioned Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin) were giving out disinformation to their listeners on the budget and debt ceiling issue. When I pressed him to give some concrete examples he only mentioned how Sean Hannity allowed some caller to mis-characterize the legislative process that was being pursued. He also mentioned that Hannity had some conversation with Congressman Ryan where Congressman Ryan put him straight. From Congressman Walberg’s comments I didn’t get the idea that there was a great deal of love lost between the Republican leadership and talk radio hosts, even though Walberg insisted that while there was dis-information by these talk radio jocks he still loved them to death.

From other folks at the meeting I learned that in their private conversations with the Congressman that he believed “the do nothing plan” would have gotten us 10 Trillion in the hole, over 10 years. The do something plan (what they passed) gets that down to 8 Trillion. Rep. Walberg still believes in paying what we owe, so for him, default was not an option. That basically cripples the house from doing anything besides passing bills that they know will go nowhere, or bills that do what the Dems want. Apparently Rep. Walberg said that if he was given a Republican senate and president, and such a constituted House and Senate tried to pass a similar bill as was just passed, he’d vote against such a bill. He didn’t exactly want to go on record with a promise.

Of course such reasoning is really quite faulty. Rep. Walberg’s “do nothing” would have resulted only in temporary default. Informed readers know as well as I do that nobody was going to default. The threat of August 02 default was completely created out of thin air in order to create a crisis mentality that something had to be done.

Second, much of this debt is fiat debt — a indebtedness that has been created out of thin air by the powerful money interest. I have no compunction whatsoever with defaulting the Banksters who have created a system intended to keep us in ever increasing debt.

The problem with chaps like Rep. Walberg is that he just doesn’t seem to understand the game. Is he familiar with what lay behind the creation of the Fed? Is he familiar with why we have boom and bust cycles? Is he familiar with the fact that debt is money in our system? If you don’t understand matters like this on some level you really have no business being in Congress.

Right now I’m all for passing bills that are do nothing. A little sclerosis right now would be a great thing. Who cares if gridlock is the option to Socialism? Where are these guys heads at?

Third, who really believes that a Republican House, Senate and Presidency is going to undo these realities. The neo-cons are in control of the Republican party and their beef with the Democrats is only that the Democrats spend a little more money then the neo-cons would AND they spend it differently than they would. The neo-cons are not fiscal conservatives (or any other kind of conservative).

No meeting like this would be complete without histrionics of some sort. One of the women in attendance was quite shrill in her denunciation of Republicans. I quite agreed with the points the woman was making but she did herself no favors in that context by getting that exercised. It is my instinct that these Congressmen know how upset and angry people are. After all, they had a county Cop in attendance, with a sidearm in evidence.

I believe Congressman Tim Walberg to be a decent well intentioned human being. I am not convinced however that he really understands the background of the issues that are facing the country and without that fuller historical and ideological background I don’t think Congressman Walberg has the tools to be able to vote in an informed fashion. Combine that reality with the reality that almost all politicians vote in terms of the next election cycle and it makes it difficult to see how the US Federal Government ever ends up being constrained from its behemoth size.

“If we should default on our debt, terrible things will ensue.” But if “we continue to move toward more and more spending cuts, we will literally disadvantage the poor…”
about an hour ago and working families of America to the advantage of those who are well off.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois

1.) It is not a matter of “if” but only “when,” in terms of the issue of default. The longer we pile up the debt the worse the “when” is going to be when the “when” finally arrives. See,

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/vega4.1.1.html

2.) We haven’t embraced any spending cuts. Only in the DC world with the way they do base line budgeting can anybody use the word “cut.” We are increasing our debt 7 trillion over ten years. When DC says “cut” they merely mean a decrease in the normal increase. They do not really mean decrease. See,

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=​press_release&id=280

3.) The poor are kept in their poverty through the subsidy of their behavior. We disadvantage and even create the poor through entitlement programs.

4.) The idea that wealth is a set amount so if some are advantaged others are disadvantaged is a Marxist myth. Durbin like all Democrats and most Republicans is a Marxist of one flavor or another.

1.) Having been part of my share of Memorial services it was kind of weird to see somebody speaking at a Memorial service to be cheered like they were being introduced on the “American Idol.”

2.) Brilliant political move by Obama to introduce his quoting of the Bible by saying …” Scripture tells us …” This repeated naked appeal to Scripture, politically speaking, helps Obama get away from the wide American suspicion that he is Muslim. I seriously doubt that Obama himself believes that Scripture is unique in its authority and yet the way he quotes it, it allows himself to represent himself as a “true believer.”

3.) I must admit that I don’t understand the National Catharsis that these types of things represent. I acknowledge that this likely speaks to something deficient in my character. It seems for many people this kind of event heals something in their souls. All I see is the unseemly parading of people’s grief by the people who are both grieving and parading. Perhaps it is because, as a Minister, I see a Memorial service as being a sending off ceremony, where that which is spoken of is the God who gave and the God who takes as well as a word regarding the person who had been given and was most recently taken. The Memorial service is not about those grieving, except to offer them comfort.

4.) Another shrewd Obama move to mention the medical community. Obama has been seen, with the whole Health Care debate, to be a man who repeatedly attacked the Medical community. By directly mentioning the medical community he subtly heals those old wounds.

5.) I don’t agree with the premise that is automatically assumed by everybody now that the National discourse is any more ragged than it has ever been. I’m old enough to remember the 60’s and the Vietnam protests. I’m old enough to remember the 70’s and the Watergate Scandals. I’m here to tell you that political discourse doesn’t get any rougher than that era. I am familiar enough with history to know of the jagged political discourse that existed during our founding. (Take a look at the history surrounding the Alien and Sedition acts.) I am familiar with the history of political discourse in the 1850’s – 1870’s. I remember the political discourse of Ted Kennedy when Robert Bork was appointed to the Supreme Court. I remember the political discourse surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings. Bottom line …. American political discourse has always been rugged and it is no more rugged now then it has ever been.

When Obama calls for “speaking to each other in ways the heal and not wound,” he is giving sanction to the left’s unfounded insistence that the National discourse has somehow gone off the rails. It just is not true.

Now, having said all that, I am glad to embrace the ideal of dispassionate rhetoric while at the same time being realistic enough in my understanding of human nature to know that just isn’t going to happen.

6.) There was a brief reference to “being willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospect of such violence in the future.” To my ears this sounds like a tee up to more legislative assaults on the second amendment.

7.) After the damage being done of several days of the mainstream media turning on Americans, Obama gets the credit for calling on Americans to not allow this event to cause us to turn on one another. That is pretty convenient and once again it is good politics. After his shock troops have done all the pillorying the President gets to look like the reasonable peacemaker in his plea for empathy and understanding.

8.) After his peacemaker routine Obama went into a extended Hallmark spiel. Be nice to your loved ones. In the end life is about how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better. (I must admit that it is difficult to take this seriously given that I know how large a part Obama has played in making people’s lives worse.)

9.) Obama sought to cast a vision of America as one big family. A tip of the hat to this effort.

10.) Obama admits that a lack of civility did not cause the shooting incident but insists that we should be civil in our conversation in order to make the dead people proud. If the shooting didn’t cause the incident how does civility make the dead people proud? “Look Gabe, we died, and isn’t it wonderful, and can’t we be proud of how civil they are to one another in their conversation?”

11.) Obama ends the speech by calling Americans to be a good Democracy the way the 9 year old who died would have imagined it. The country must live up to our children’s expectations. Doing it for the “children” is pretty standard political fare, right up there with kissing babies.

12.) The final close is with Obama connecting the patriotism that was hoped for, for the child as expressed in signatures surrounding her birth photos with the necessity for American patriotism, even gesturing with his hand over his heart. REMEMBER, that this also has been an issue for Obama. Remember the photos from the campaign days where he is the only person on the dais without his hand over his heart during the Star Spangled banner. This closing and the gesture accompanying it helps to erase those concerns that have showed up in polling data.

It was a very clever speech for Obama, subtly addressing some key concerns that polling data reveals is on American minds. The speech helps erase the questions about his “Christianity.” The speech helps erase the questions about his patriotism. The speech shows him compassionate towards health professionals that have questioned that compassion. He wraps it all loosely around the deceased and tightly around the deceased nine year old. The door is left open for efforts on more gun control. He gets to take the high road on the outrageous slander that has come from his ideological compatriots while at the same time subtly affirming that the current political discourse is a problem.

Clever, clever, clever.