Moonbeam’s bankrupt California continues to buy Latino votes with money we don't have. Our “balanced budgets” are achieved by not paying the state’s pension obligations. And today facing over a half trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, the governor announces that the state will “shelter immigrants”, those munchkins dumped by the hordes across our y’all come border with Mexico (more here). Never mind that California already is the nation’s leader in all the metrics tracking the poor, disabled, unemployed, ignorant, and stupid.
Local blogger and RR reader Todd Juvinall has more to say about the latest wave of juvenile illegal aliens. He writes an excellent piece that appeared in the 30jul14 Union. Give it a read (don’t know whether The Union has accepted the advice to un-paywall its op-ed page).
Doesn’t it just frost your external plumbing when you come to realize that the Fed has been promoting the fortunes of the dastardly one-percenters, and creating more inequality by keeping interest rates insanely low in order to counteract Obama’s destructive policies impeding economic recovery? It is, of course, sold as part and parcel of the administration’s ongoing Big Lie claiming that it is all done to help Main Street counter Wall Street. Ruchir Sharma at Morgan Stanley lifts the curtain for us with his ‘Liberals Love the One-Percent’ in the 30jul14 WSJ. The dots to be connected are that the policy maintains the fat cats’ buying of political influence while camouflaging the administration’s fundamental transformation of America.
Did you see what the political scumbags in the Texas legislature are doing to the First Amendment to keep from having their corruptions being exposed by non-profit issue advocacy groups? They are working through their Ethics Committee to reinterpret existing state election code to now require these groups to “register with the state, hire campaign accountants and attorneys, and file and disclose detailed reports on contributions, spending and their beneficiaries. Violations are a criminal offense.” (more here) Can you spell 'knee-buckling expenses'?
Returning to the Convention of States – the constitutional amendment procedure described in our Constitution’s Article 5 – about which I remain perplexed with a number of questions about its current direction and resulting efficacy having gone unanswered by the conservative proponents of launching such a convention. I gave some background on the CoS in my 7apr14 post.
Various groups on the Right and Left are almost rabidly in favor of holding CoS as an answer to making changes in America’s governance that are not possible under the current Constitution as amended. Each parties’ objectives are anathema to the other. While the Right seeks to establish a requirement for fiscal prudence and limited government, the Left seeks to abridge/eliminate more freedoms and enlarge the scope and reach of Leviathan.
The bottom line is that, under current constitutional procedures, holding a controllable (by either party) CoS - i.e. another Constitutional Convention - is nigh on impossible (more here). However, this problem has been extensively studied and there are reasonable ways forward. A particularly good piece of work was done by the Cato Institute and reported in its Policy Analysis #691 (18jan12) titled ‘Renewing Federalism by Reforming Article V – Defects in the Constitutional Amendment Process and a Reform Proposal’. I’d sure like to see someone on the Right in the leadership of their CoS initiative, someone like, say, Mark Meckler respond to Cato’s analysis of the problem and its proposed way forward. Simply dismissing criticisms of the current efforts toward a CoS with denigrations and/or crickets is not productive.