Politics, News & Issues >
US Leaders (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the next US president focus more on domestic issues?
Results so far:
| No | 20% | 35 votes | Total: 174 votes | |
| Yes | 80% | 139 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn answering a question posed at the closing of the Constitutional convention, Benjamen Franklin uttered the famous words "A Republic if you can keep it." That day, September 18, 1787, marked an important date in this nation's history; a summer spent in a particularly hot Philadelphia had seen compromise form the backbone of these United States of America.
We are fortunate to live in a Constitutional Republic a nation of laws where the citizens are represented by their elected officials. This was the compromise reached in that sweltering Philadelphia summer. Men who had seen the dangers inherent in government, sought to strike a balance between a necessary evil (government) and individual freedoms that had recently been won at great costs. Recognizing the dangers found in a democracy some went so far as to call it "mob rule" - the framers set up a system of checks and balances in which a limited government could operate while maximizing precious individual freedoms.
It is vital to understand the intent behind our particular form of government and how that government relates to the question posed. Since the ratification of our Constitution, it has been - and remains - the supreme law of our land: all laws must, by law, flow from within the scope of our Constitution. That is an important fact to remember as we contemplate the question asked.
The Constitution serves two main objectives; it limits federal powers to those specified, and it recognizes the fact that U.S. Citizens have unalienable rights.
We've all heard of the slippery slope leading to doom: thanks to unruly courts, and politicians who are most eager to retain power via vote-buying schemes, we're well on our way down the path to eventual servitude.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship." - Alexander Tytler
Similar thoughts have been expressed throughout time, but I fear they've gone unheeded as our society has drifted further and further from our nation's basic principles. One doesn't have to search for long to find some talking heads droning on and on about a fictitious need on the domestic front. In fact many among us are eager to vote ourselves the very largess that Tytler warned us about nearly two centuries ago.
While some of those domestic "needs" are well within the scope of government, few bother to task themselves with the duty of asking where the money has gone. Many decry the state of our nation's infrastructure, seemingly unaware of the fact that - on average - every man, woman, and child pays a whopping $271 in gasoline taxes each year (as of 2005). First imposed in 1932, the federal gasoline tax is now 18.4 cents per gallon: adding in state and local taxes increases the total tax (per gallon) to an average of 45.9 cents per gallon, with some states over 60 cents per gallon.
From its inception, the gasoline tax went into the general fund, though the amount raised was used as a benchmark for federal spending. In 1956 the Federal Aid Highway Act established the Highway Trust fund and mandated that 100% of the taxes raised be deposited in that fund and used solely for financing federal highways. This all changed in 1982 when the government established the Mass Transit fund and reserved 20% of new gasoline taxes for that fund.
In short, money raised for the repair and maintenance of our infrastructure has been diverted due to the whims of the relative few. We now have an infrastructure in need of repair (and updating) and a mass transit system that cannot function on its own accord. Each time a gallon of gasoline is purchased, we are financing someone else's ride on mass transit.
Other purported needs have a far more dismal record when it comes to government; even those rare few needs that are under the auspices of Congressional powers seldom warrant the extensive infringement that always accompanies government intervention.
Most of today's society is rather ill informed when it comes to presidential powers; we tend to cast blame and give credit when neither is warranted. The Constitution makes it quite clear that domestic issues are almost exclusively the domain of Congress; the Executive Office is largely limited to either signing a bill into law, or vetoing the bill. The only other real power - regarding domestic issues - that the president has, is the bully pulpit: effectively using the office to take the message to the people.
Presidential candidates certainly share the blame for the public's faulty perception of Executive Office powers: the candidates tend to offer promises that simply cannot be accomplished and usually should not be undertaken at all. However, if those promises are to be considered, it is the Congress that has that power: the president can do little besides urging Congress to heed his bidding.
Normally when government is the answer, the question asked was one based on negatives. However on those rare occasions when government is the only viable option, we must be informed voters and demand that government limits itself to only those powers granted per our Constitution. In the end, we citizens must be willing to bear the yoke of responsibility as our freedom depends upon it.
Learn more about this author, Mike John.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
The collapse of the USSR in the 1980s left the US unquestionably the lone super-power in the world. The US did not defeat the USSR on the battlefield, on the seas, or in the air. What defeated the USSR was the collapse of its economy trying to maintain its super-power status and control amassing numbers of dissidents within populations under its control.
The US economy is now on the brink of collapse trying to maintain its super-power status and control amassing numbers of dissidents within populations under its control. The current course for the US has many precedences in history, of which few had positive results.
The next US President should focus more on domestic issues both to prevent the country from losing its ability, and its credibility, to positively influence the world.
INFLUENTIAL ABILITY
The country's ability to influence the world lies in its economy. For its economy to be strong, money must flow to and from all people. The difference between the amount of money flowing out of the economy, and other money flowing into the economy, is the trade deficit or surplus. The money that flows in, but is retained by few rather than divided by all people in the form of paychecks, is investment income for few and unemployment for many.
SIMPLE CURE IS SIMPLY WORSE
Though it may seem logical to conclude that doling unemployment entitlements is the answer, there are times when cures are worse than illnesses. Entitlements must be considered carefully. We are facing that now with the so-called health care crisis. The only proposal assuring health care is one similar to expanding Medicare, which is substandard unless supplemented. It will, predictably, have problems that require more money and expansion, which will, predictably, still result in substandard care unless supplemented.
Similar ly, charging companies, many of which are struggling to stay open, to pay stipends to people who do not work does not help industry or employment. Worse yet, the stipends generally are not sufficient to offset the lost income, and leave the recipient looking for work from employers who are facing global competition and paying higher taxes.
When the federal government gets involved, it is not restricted to balanced spending and revenue generation. Citizens should also consider that actual revenue generated by the federal government that is returned to states and local governments, is money that could have been paid to the state and local government without federal bureaucratic costs associated with the transaction.
Money spent for which no true revenue was generated is deficit spending. It is money that will be paid for with future tax revenues. Much of the budget is dedicated to paying bonds and bills for previous deficits. Theoretically, we can determine what we are paying for from the past with revenues generated today, just as we can on credit cards. The result of what is being paid for on credit cards will depend on whether a person is responsible or not. However, The result of what from past deficits is being paid for today is distressful because the federal government has not been responsible to its citizenry.
The next US President should focus on domestic economy through reduction of reliance upon federal resources that result in exorbitant costs and devaluation of the dollar. The country's ability to influence the world depends on it.
INFLUENTIAL CREDIBILITY
The country's credibility to influence the world lies in its demonstrations of practicing what it preaches. Otherwise, calling out the hypocrisy is merely pointing out facts. The country preaches democracy, liberty and free speech for citizens, and opportunities for a better way of life for those willing to work for it. Underlying all that talk is the message, to both the citizens of the world and the country, that disagreement is seen as threat.
CLEANING UP OUR OWN BACK YARD
The concept of democracy at the federal level in the US is despicable. Voices and ideas are limited to two parties, with an occasional third party spoiling it for one of the two. The parties wield more power than the candidates at the demand of spoiled and uninformed citizenry. Both parties propose expanding federal influence over its citizens, and throughout the world, through entitlements and enforcements. It is hypocritical for the US government to preach democracy throughout the world, while promoting a system that excludes all but two voices similar in the purpose for expanding federal influence.
The concept of liberty and free speech at the federal level in the US is despicable. There was a day when federal agencies spied on American citizens covertly. Now, for the sake of security, US citizens now allow the federal government to spy covertly legally. We tolerate searches at airports by federal agents, some of whom have ripped people off. We tolerate being hassled crossing borders, and fear what we say, or who we talk to, may someday be used against us. It is hypocritical for the US government to preach liberty and free speech throughout the world, while promoting a system that restricts the liberty and free speech of its own citizens.
The concept of opportunity for a better life for those willing to work for it at the federal level in the US is despicable. Rules and regulations hinder small companies from competing against large companies, and taxation issues give large companies significant advantage through foreign markets over smaller companies relying upon American labor. Unemployed people often must violate rules and regulations in order to supplement stipends with odd jobs and sales of crafts, while hoping to land a job pushing papers or people with the government, or an with another employer producing something worthwhile.
The next US President should focus more on true democracy, liberty and free speech, and opportunity for its own citizens for the purpose of having credibility when espousing those concepts throughout the world.
TAKING OUR LUMPS
The fault for what is happening to the US economy and federal government lies squarely on consumers and voters. Ironically, US consumers and voters are demanding that which is diminishing the country's ability and credibility to exert positive influence in the world.
It is not that companies want to export jobs, but rather that consumers demand the lowest prices. It is not that the government wants to restrict democracy, liberty and free speech, and opportunity, but rather that voters elect those who promise to do so. We envision that we are being given reduced-cost and free lunches, but we are really being handed peanut butter sandwiches for the cost of a surf-and-turf buffets.
Better it would be for us to make some extra meals for our neighbors, to reduce the cost of government providing tremendously expensive and inadequate sandwiches. Better it would be for us to elect a President who will curtail expensive federal programs that result in distributions back to states and local authorities with bureaucratic costs paid for in the future. Better it would be, but only if we demand it.
The focus on domestic issues by the next US President will reflect the muddled attitudes of a majority of voters. Unless the muddling is clarified by voters casting ballots marked with conscience, the muddling will be magnified by consciously voting to manipulate the outcome for one of two candidates.
The next US President should focus more on domestic issues, and that focus should reflect the clear conscience of US citizenry. Otherwise, the citizenry is hypocritical.
Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Leaders (Other)
- Is lifelong Secret Service protection for former Presidents fiscally sound?
- Does giving effective speeches make an effective president?
- Should President Obama have gone to Denmark to lobby for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago?
- Should former US presidents speak out against a current president?
- Should President Obama be impeached?
- Should we judge presidents by their words or by their deeds?
