Money Bomb Feature

Personal Freedom and Prosperity 110: The Rule of Law

In drawing up the Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams described the Rule of Law as “to the end it may be a government of laws, not of men.”

The Rule of Law in Ukraine, Venezuela and the USA

The protests and violence in the Ukraine and Venezuela are widespread public outrage against oppressive laws decreed by the coercive powers of their governments. In both countries, the middle class is rebelling against the corruption and edicts of oligarchs and dictators. Essentially, the citizens of Ukraine and Venezuela are seeking, in John Adams words, “... a government of laws, not of men.” They are seeking to participate in a system of written rules that are universally, impartially and uniformly enforced. This is generally referred to as the Rule of Law, and for this blog is defined as:

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

Similar to the middle class rebellions in Ukraine and Venezuela, America's Revolutionary War was fought to be free from the edicts of King George III and the Parliament of England. Remember the Sugar, Stamp, and Quartering acts. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison created three branches of government to prevent government by proclamation. These constitutional checks and balances were to protect the freedom of every American from the proclamations or arbitrary decisions of government, especially the ruler.

Today, the citizens of Ukraine and Venezuela are seeking freedom. Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner correctly reasons that the citizens of Ukraine and Venezuela - two very diverse countries - are risking their lives because there is the “absence of the rule of law.” More importantly Barone cautions Americans:

“The rule of law is hard to establish and easy to dismantle. Something to keep in mind as our president keeps unilaterally rewriting Obamacare and our IRS targets his political opponents.”

Earlier this week, President Obama released a budget plan that has to have most Americans wondering if they've found themselves in the middle of a Bill Murray Groundhog Day scenario. The budget offers little in the way of new ideas, simply a repeat of the President's failed policies of the past.

Here are the crib notes for the proposal - Tax, spend, rinse, repeat.

Obama's budget - a $3.9 trillion monstrosity that will increase spending by 63 percent and add $8.3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years - seeks more than $600 billion in new spending designed. The plan calls for only minor spending cuts to narrow targets and a hike in taxes on the rich.

In fact, the President is calling for nearly $2 trillion in new taxes to ease borrowing over the next decade, taxes that The Washington Post explained would be a burden to major businesses and the wealthy.

Additionally, there is little that the President's budget offers by way of compromise with Republicans. Time called it "a partisan opus" and "a laundry-list of policy proposals designed to help Democrats hold the Senate and pick up seats in the House."

The President, who has mastered the art of vague yet unachievable promises during his term, proclaims his budget will provide 'opportunity for all,' and seeks to end homelessness. His debt projections are overly-optimistic, colliding with that of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

When the President does try to address specifics, his ideas are partisan and fall flat. Gun control, immigration reform, the aforementioned lack of spending cuts, or a plan to reign in benefit increases for Social Security for example.

Politico writes:

... unlike last year, when Obama was seeking a fiscal bargain with Republicans and used the budget as an olive branch, this year’s proposal contains no major compromises. Gone is the request for chained CPI, an offer to reduce the the benefit increases for Social Security and other federal social programs.

The New York Times explains that it was his fellow Democrats that sought the elimination of the chained CPI because the party is "fearful that compromises on Social Security would further demoralize the liberal base when the party needs high turnout to withstand big losses in November."

The President's budget is more about winning elections than actually governing while in office. The real world is hard.

That reality it seems, has escaped this particular budget plan. Even the normally friendly liberal media has been unable to take it seriously. Here is a sampling of media reviews:

“The White House isn’t even pretending that this year’s budget is a governing document.”

"Very little of it is expected to ... be seriously considered."

"Stands little or no chance of being approved."

In retrospect, perhaps the prospect of having "little chance of being approved" makes the President hopeful. After all, little chance is far greater than past results.

Matt Kibbe explains, "President Obama’s budgets got zero votes in 2011 and 2012. Not zero Republican votes, zero votes, period. With progressive pipe dreams like his latest budget proposal, it’s not difficult to see why."

Until Congress votes this time around, the American people are left to wallow in the President's progressive pipe dreams.

He is a broken record, stuck on tax, spend, repeat.

Follow Rusty on Twitter @rustyweiss74

The Obama administration has unilaterally altered Obamacare again in a way that is wholly illegal, expending money from the Treasury without Congressional approval. Someone ought to pay dearly for this crime, but like all such actions in this administration, it is our children who will pay.