Saturday, July 28, 2007

Fred Dalton Thompson Reagan?

The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.

The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states.

You know better than anyone how involvement from Washington affects nearly every policy, program, and aspect of your jobs. But beyond the nuisance of duplicative state and federal requirements, one might wonder if a division of responsibility between the federal government and the states is still important. The answer must be a resounding yes.
Read the whole thing. No, really, read the whole thing. I mean it. Why are you still here? I thought I just told you to go and read the whole thing.

OK, for those of you who want to read me instead: My favorite part of this piece is this sentence:
You know better than anyone how involvement from Washington affects nearly every policy, program, and aspect of your jobs.
How much of our gross domestic product is spent satisfying federal regulations? How much has Sarbanes-Oxley cost businesses?

What effect are these regulations having on our national economy? Reagan cut back on them and cut taxes and look what happened to our economy in the 1980's. Clinton canceled Reagan's executive order and look at the recession that Bush inherited in 2001. Although we certainly can't claim that Bush has done anything impressive in reining in the feds. Sigh.

No comments: