« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

O Brave New World

What Conservatives Can Accomplish by Emluating Liberals

It’s becoming apparent that Democrats have decided that they really will do anything to pass Obamacare – including seemingly violating the Constitution. This is likely to guarantee that their health care plan will enjoy an express ride to a Supreme Court challenge, but it also opens up a whole new range of possibilities for enactment of a bold conservative agenda.

Right now, it seems highly likely that Republicans will control one or more houses of Congress in the near future. The House could easily fall to Republican control in 2010, and the Senate is a distinct possibility. Voters contemplating an individual health care mandate, and an unprecedented power grab might be even more likely to throw out endangered Democrats. Control of both chambers could come this year. Even if they do not, they could easily win back both Houses of Congress and the White House in 2012 – when far more Democrat-held Senate seats are up than GOP seats.

And consider what they can accomplish by following the precedent about to be established by the Democrats. If and when they have control of both chambers, it may no longer be necessary to muster majorities in favor of controversial bills. Instead, they will be able to pass priority measures by a majority vote for resolutions ‘deeming’ a bill to have passed. And why should there be any concern given to the actual level of support for a measure in question? If Democrats now ‘deem passed’ a health care bill that might only get 205 votes or so in the House, perhaps Republicans could ‘deem passed’ a bill that might only have the actual support of 200, or 190 – or even 180. In fact, there’s probably no real floor. If attached to a sufficiently popular piece of legislation, almost anything might be done.

And why limit themselves to using the maneuver only in the House? There’s no reason the Senate should be barred from passing resolutions that ‘deem’ a bill to have passed. A shrewd Senate leader would identify ‘must-pass’ legislation to which deeming resolutions could be attached. More votes could be gained by ‘deeming’ some highly popular measures along with the controversial ones – complicating the arguments of opponents.

Further, if Congress can deem a bill to have passed without actually voting on it, what is to prevent them from specifying the margin by which it passed? If Congressional Republicans can get a majority to vote for a bill specifying for example, that a veto override measure passed by more than two-thirds majority, President Obama’s initiatives could be overturned by a bare majority in both House and Senate. Certainly such a measure might seem ripe for a Constitutional challenge, but if our Democrat friends are going to pave the way, we would be remiss not to push the envelope.

In short, conservatives ought not fear the Slaughter solution: we ought to cheer the Democrats on, and then take advantage of their willingness to do the formerly-unthinkable.

COMMENTS

  • graceia

    because two wrongs really do not make a right.

    I would be fearful if anyone thought that this might be good for the Republicans. They are just as capable of abusing power as the Democrats. It is only human nature.

    • KathW
    • WarEagle01

      secure in our knowledge that “we’re doing the right thing,” the Democrats will be using every weapon at their disposal to ram through their radical nation-destroying agenda. But heck, at least we can feel good about ourselves as our country transforms itself into a socialist dystopia. Because feelings are important.

      • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

        It has nothing to do with Washington DC, Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. It has to do with what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. It is clear that as a federation of states we were never meant to reach the level of nationalism we see today. The power rests in the states and not the federal government. Until we realize this and take back the rightful power of the states then both parties will continue the march to serfdom we find ourselves in now.

        There are many who are aware of nullification and many who are not. I was in the later camp, but now that I understand it, read the history of its use, and listened to speakers such as Judge Napolitano on the issue, our way forward is clear.

        Nullify ObamaCare. If cap-and-trade passes – nullify it. Nullify most of Obama’s Executive Orders as they are unconstitutional.

        The final arbiter of the Constitution rests with the states, not the Supreme Court:

        Nullification – Our Constitutional Option: http://tinyurl.com/ya3dc7f

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          You really are obsessed. It’s clearly clouding your judgment.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            The fact you do not see the difference is telling. What would you do, have the Supreme Court, the very same court which began absconding with the rights of the states, be the final arbiter of your life? As my updated post indicates, nullification is peaceful, constitutional, and has worked in the past. I would take Judge Napolitano’s opinion over yours any day and I link to an interview with him in my post.

            I the past you called Jefferson a proto-Marxist. How do you reconcile a man whose work on the Kentucky and Virgina resolutions – which communicate quite clearly the rights are with the states and not the federal government, with a ideology where the state is supreme? And I am to take you seriously? Sorry, but I find that impossible.

            Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

          • Trelaina

            Not only with nullification, but now “GOP should shut down the senate”. Every time he posts, he spams links on every post he can find that’s related.

            Couple of times I’ve even considered recommending a diary of GJMerit’s….then saw the spam and changed my mind.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Time to hear your solutions in detail. I am waiting. Let’s debate your solutions, explore their efficacy in dealing with not just ObamaCare but an out of control federal government.

            Refute what I have written in the posts, or, as Judge Napolitano points out, you can forfeit the fight by name calling and avoidance.

            If you think relying on the House does not trust the Senate strategy, explain to me why you think this will work. Actually, explain to me how this is a strategy, then provide me your solution for the GOP to escalate this to the public’s attention instead of being a cheerleader for them. As I have documented well, if not for DeMint and the folks who came up with the obstruction strategy in the Senate last year, ObamaCare would be law right now. Did you see what the previous GOP strategy was to stop ObamaCare?

            Read this and tell me you have a solution that involves using the federal government: http://tinyurl.com/y99rxt8

            With the exception of DeMint, the GOP thought more of their Christmas vacation until we called them out. Then it was discovered the GOP wanted Obamacare to pass for electoral gains in November. A few email buys and a large email campaign changed their minds – and quickly.

            Now the same people involved in getting the GOP to obstruct are saying the GOP needs to shut down the Senate. Given their track record, I would recommend listening to them.

            Unless you have a better idea. If so, let’s hear it.

          • Trelaina

            …you’re missing my point, which I believe is different than Neil’s.

            I don’t necessarily disagree with your ideas. I thought some of your ideas/diaries were worth recommending. Others, I’ve read the comments and see a need for further consideration.

            My issue is with your habit of spamming your thoughts and website links all over RedState.

            You may also want to consider re-reading the comments that have been made on your posts. Many of them come from experienced and intelligent RedStaters who believe in the same ideas as you, and could help you.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            You are correct, I have linked where necessary due to the sheer lack of knowledge on the subject. In reference to the Senate GOP shutting down the Senate I have done that twice. I have spammed no other diary entries either.

            So yes, with nullification I have linked to the post often. Why, because I don’t want to type out the entire piece over and over again.

            What you can spam, I call expediency.

          • Trelaina

            at least one of whom is paying attention to you.

            I just want you to realize that there are some who are dismissing your posts because of the way you present them.

            I’m about to join them.

        • wayneepalmer

          …but, while I agree with the morality of the notion about what you are ascribing to the Founders, the reality of the thoughts of the Founders on this subject is far less unanimous.

          Some of the states only signed on on that premise. Others promised that they agreed but in truth wanted a far stronger central government.

          Many of those who swore to one view actively moved to subvert that view before the ink of the Constitution was dry. Our whole government has been in constant warfare (sometimes literally) over this issue since day one.

          As bad and as evil as many of PharoObama’s plans and ideals are (they’re horrific and our culture is doomed if he wins) and as bad as the Constitution is being violated, we still have a way to go to catch up with how much it has been violated by Presidents past.

          The three who went the farthest were Abe Lincoln (who completely violated every precept save 2nd Amendment – including arresting politicians who voted against his bills) the racist Woodrow Wilson (admired by Hitler and Mussolini – put 175,000 Americans in concentration camps for speaking out against WWI – or even for refusing to buy bonds), and FDR (stuffing the Supremes with supporters to protect his socialist takeover, and put in excess of 100,000 Japanese CITIZENS in camps and their property was seized and disposed of).

          Nothing about our Constitution has ever been safe or static. One idiot or another has tried to figure out how to get around it to inflict his will on us and a number of them have been pretty successful at it albeit temporarily in most ways.

          It is by the Grace of God and the determination of the American people that we haven’t lost our Freedom to would-be fascists like PharoObama and I just pray we have it in us to fight the good fight once again.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            You make excellent points and your history is spot on, but miss two important aspects of what I wrote. Nullification is possible today in modern times if enough states choose to nullify a law. There would be no way to enforce it. Also, it is clear what our founding fathers intended:

            The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the constitution. Read the post and it should become clear, although it takes some time to read through all the information to get a good understanding of what our founders intended. Still, it makes sense if you think of it this way:

            The founders fought the British for our independence. The catalyst was the Stamp Act, and it is not very important what that is right now. In the end, when we won, we looked at Britain, which was a nationalist country with the sovereignty in the Parliament of the country and said, basically, we will do the opposite. So thirteen sovereign states with a few provisions for a national government to loosely stitch us together seemed like a good solution and compromise as long as the powers were concentrated in the states with only a few powers, defined in the constitution, relegated to the federal government. The goal was to never find ourselves in a situation where a few could lord over the many and create an atmosphere of tyranny.

            Well guess what, look where we are today and ask yourself why. The answer is below and also resides in the fact that there are a lot of people who just think about this in the wrong way.

            As Jefferson stated quite eloquently, it makes no sense to set up such a system if the SCOTUS was the final arbiter of the constitution, because what you are basically implying is that states no longer matter and you are relying on a federal power to check the federal powers – a recipe for disaster and ultimately tyranny. It is like kissing your own lips or touching the tip of your right index finger with the tip of your right index finger. Such self-referential checks do not work. All it takes to chip away at liberty is for multiple instances in time to exist where a misunderstanding of the original intent of the founders, or some more nefarious intent to lead to the federal powers to abscond with our liberty, and that is exactly what has happened and exactly what has been chronicled quite well.

            Looking at history in context, it is clear this country was set up as a federation of states with the intent of a federal government intended to be weaker than the states, not the other way around.

            As indicated in my post via links to other sites, books, and other material, this philosophy was turned on its head over the decades and happened under the radar so slowly that we have become accustomed to thinking the feds rule the states and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things constitutional.

            Not true.

      • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

        It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. It seems to me that many are willing to just roll over and have their bellies scratched like a bunch of weak puppies. I admire a fellow fighter and note there are others in this thread. The reason liberalism has made it so far is they seem willing to bend the rules to their will and obfuscate, lie, and cheat while our so-called representatives and some on our side would rather sit there idly smiling with a KY tube in their hands, looking for excuses not to fight, and never really offering up anything useful other than the same old tired strategies that got us to this point. Good for you.

        Keep up the good fight and more posts like this please.

    • mbecker908

      We’re in state we’re in because of your concept of “right”.

      Politics is bloodsport and the game is for the soul of the nation. It’s way past time our side put on body armor and played for keeps.

      In addition to playing by the same legislative rules that the Ds are ever willing to use, we should, at a minimum:

      1 – Fire EVERY administrative appointee in every Department of the Executive Branch who was appointed by a Democrat.

      2 – Turn the DoJ loose with RICO investigations coordinated with the AG’s of Red States into the people who ran ACORN (they’ll close ACORN down and start up doing the same crap under another name), every non-profit group that works on “voting rights” projects.

      3 – Find a way to launch investigations into every D CongressCritter and Senator. Turn over every rock in their lives, go after their adult kids, their working spouses and their brothers and sisters.

      • Brian Hibbert

        1. That’s exactly the tactics that the lefties have been using against us.

        2. There’s likely to be a tons of ACTUAL corruption that would be turned up by taking these actions.

        3. If this is done in a public manner, it would be the one thing that could clean up our government and everyone who’s not part of the corruption (even the non-connected lefties) want it cleaned up.

        • mbecker908

          All we’re doing is enforcing the law and getting rid of people in the enforcement mechanism who refuse to.

          • Brian Hibbert

            you’re proposing dirty tactics, but the actual proposals you made are nothing of the kind. If done in the open and according to law, what you proposed is what is needed to clean up government.

        • Achance

          to do them at every level of government is the reason the Democrats were able to essentially stay in power through a succession of Republican Congresses and Presidents since ’68.

          Republicans fundamentally don’t know anything about running a government and most of them neither like nor pay much attention to the day to day operations of a government. Consequently, they put a thin veneer of Republican appointees in place and leave the Democrats firmly in charge of the bureaucracy. They they wonder what they get thwarted, sabotaged, and leaked to death.

          The Democrats have whole shadow government of law firms, unions, non-profits, and for profit businesses providing services to government all of which live on transfer payments from the federal and state governments. The federal government doesn’t audit effectively under any administration and doesn’t audit Democrat front groups at all under a Democrat adminiistration. Little of the federal money going to the front groups goes directly from the federal government to the group; it goes to a state or local government where it is appropriated and put out to the front group as a grant or contract. My state is as good an example as any; we are now in the 8th year of Republican control of the legislature and the Governorship and the same old Democrat fronts that got their hooves in the trough during eight years of Democrat rule haven’t missed a payday under Republican rule. There has been no auditing, no real competitive bidding; thus it was, thus it shall ever be because first Murkowski, then Palin, and now Parnell have left all the holdover Democrats and congenital appointees in place and they just keep on keeping on.

          There is hardly a union in the Country that could pass an inquiry into the Constitutionality of its dues scheme or its accounting practices. There is hardly a contractor or grantee in the Country that could withstand an audit of its expenditures under its grant or contract. Yet noting is done in the Red states and noting is even expected in the Blue ones. In the Blue states having power in government explicitly comes with stealing privileges.

          So, no, it isn’t dirty tricks, it is doing your duty as an officeholder and public manager.

      • hickorystick

        Abortion will be eliminated. Oil will be drilled. Teachers will teach positively about America or be fired. Unions will be outlawed from receiving any federal $$$ . Eliminating rules can be fun for conservatives too!

  • WarEagle01

    then it changes everything, as long as our GOP representatives have a sufficient amount of testicular fortitude (always an iffy proposition).

    • http://fairfaxgardener.blogspot.com ddstrain

      it ends the Republic and begins the Kleptocracy.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout
  • Achance

    is pass a rule in statute that requires an explicit bill title, limits that title to a single subject, and requires all provisions of the bill to conform to that title. That will end one Helluva lot of Congressional mischief.

    • eastbaylarry

      Just so! I for one am very tired of seeing unrelated pork stuck into every needed bill!

    • Trelaina
    • rickindenver

      Said bill must have language pointing directly to the artical and section of the constitution that gives congress the authority to write, pass and enact said legislation!

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    Just pass a resolution ‘deeming’ that Obama signed the bill.

    Seriously though, this is how banana republics operate and is the root cause of why they’re banana republics. No stability in the law. Instead the law becomes subject to the passions of the majority at the time.

    • Scope

      For the Republicans to just do the same dirty tactics that the Democrats are employing makes this country a farce. The Constitution and the Republic, who has survived this long, would never have made it if one party broke/stretched the law, and the next party in power pushed it further. I would love to see the Republicans regain power, but, if they follow the same path, that most Americans are screaming about, it just means, each new Presidency and Congress pushes the envelope further and further. Actually, I believe that is why we have the uprising now that we do. The majority is sick of it all. We need a principled presidency, and Congressional body, not one that blames the last administration for all the countries ills, and, in some cases is correct.

  • redneck_hippie

    However, the Dems have the lack of character and integrity to do this, relishing the thought that if it works once, it will work again, and is the only way to finish tearing down our society.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    “If we do this, what’s to prevent the GOP from doing it as well?”

  • avgjo

    IF needs be, the Republicans should use every dirty trick the Dems did to do the following:

    undo Obama’s damage

    neuter the liberal courts (‘abolish’ them as Jefferson did)

    defund bureaucracy

    destroy unions in this country and make it near impossible for them to revive (every state is a right to work state and heavy regulations on unions)

    federal prosecutions of union heads, ACORN leaders and others.

    AND THEN

    implement a strong interpretation of 10th Amerndment. After dealing with various bureaucracies, put the power of those groups back into hands of states. Ram through a law that no program can be instituted for which the money does not already exist in the bank. I.E. , no program can be instituted based on projected revenues, only on money on hand and current revenues.
    Any future tricks by possible future Dem majorities will be severely handicapped if they have no bureaucratic structure through which to conrrol us or money with which to oppress us.

    Finally, ram through laws preventing future Congresses from doing the same thing.

    It’s the same game the Dems have played for years. Do what you want, change the rules when it suits you. They are the minority in this country, and look how much damage they have done by using this strategy.

    We have to be every bit as cutthroat and ruthless with these people as they are with us.

    To me, it is not that much different from using whatever weapons we had to to end WWII.

    Our weapons here are political, and the threat to the country is domestic, but the use every means at your disposal philosophy applies.

    And this Dem. chicanery is giving us those means.

    Like someone said above what good is it to pat yourself on the back about doing the right thing when the country goes to hell?

    To me, this is analogous to the libs who don’t want to waterboard terrorists because ‘That’s not what Americans do’.

    It is suicidal. And, as has been said many times before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

  • toothpick

    This is either clever satire or Mutually Assured Destruction of the republic. I never understood before why exactly the term “Nuclear Option” was applied. I do now.

    • avgjo

      (Sorry, I am almost finished with a polisci degree; this kind of thing is discussed all the time. Consequences, consequences…)

  • teresakoch

    with the part about what the GOP will be able to do once they are in power if this goes through. Be sure that they understand that we WILL do it. After all, as their “hero”, Saul Alinsky, said: Just the THREAT of an action will usually be enough to make people back down…..

  • lurker9876

    If Pelosi choses the Slaughter solution, then the Republicans has every right to use the Slaughter solution AND nuclear option to repeal ObamaCare. They should not need 67 votes and 290 votes to repeal it.

  • honorable

    I remember how Clinton ran against the GOP controlled House and Senate. In 2012, Obama will similarly run against the GOP controlled congress and Senate. If we want to win back the WH and both houses of Congress, we should similarly be smart. Winning 48or 49 Seanate seats will perhaps not allow Obama to run against the GOP and blame the majority party in the House and Senate.

    Do you think this type of strategy is wrong? Are there any flaws in my thinking?

    • Swamp_Yankee

      People dont hate Obama, they are just afraid of his trainwreck liberal policies. I think people forget how radical and unpopular Clinton was in 1993, radical appointments, socialized medicine, gays in the military and that was almost twenty years ago.

      But once Newt neutered him, her became somewhat irrelevant. He became the balance against the GOP Congress. He triangulated and people felt comfortable with the power baance, especially the markets. I do think the GOP takeovers will help Obama in 2012, how much who knows

      But I’d prefer as many votes in the Senate as possible. Judges, judges, judges, Never underestimate judicial appointments, and there will be plenty in the net couple years.

      • Finrod

        Bill Clinton was a clever politician and not an ideologue; Obama is not so clever and much more of an ideologue. I don’t see him triangulating like Bill did.

        • Swamp_Yankee

          He is more of a “true believer” than Clinton, but his hands will still be tied. More importantly, the money men are not partisan and they love predictability and gridlock. If GOP wins Congress, the money will loosen and the economy will show signs of life.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            He won’t act like Clinton, he will act like Carter, he will become sullen and accuse the American people of stupidity and racism, just like Carter.

          • Achance

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-15/the-decision-that-changed-the-dems/full/

            I think it is a spot-on analysis.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            Beinart’s analysis is based on the status quo, how Obama will act with “only” 59 Senators. If he loses the House outright, all his major initiatives will be dead. Its not a matter of will or calculation, he simply wont be able to govern as a radical and that alone will boost his image, along with economic growth that may occur with a GOP victory.

          • redneck_hippie

            Only the UK has a bigger problem posed to keep AAA bond rating.

            from drudge

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a0a8xAghPS8I

            “?We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,? Cailleteau said. ?This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            That stiffs the debt-collectors every time.

          • redneck_hippie

            If 10% unemployment doesn’t faze the vampires, then I suppose inflation woes will enduce them to tax even higher.

  • itsmelord

    GO REPUBLICANS AND PRO—LIFE DO NOT FEAR FOR NOTHING. NO HEALTH BILL. NO DEFEAT FOR WHAT’S RIGHT. NO MORE OBAMA,REID,PELOSI SONGS. ABOUT[ “GODLESS AMERICA! , LAND THAT WE HAVE ROBBED.” IT’S NOW OR NEVER!!!!!

  • bamron

    Or they think they are. The term is Marxist, coined by an ideologue of the German Socialist movement in the 19th century. Those are the people who know better than practically anybody else in the world what is best for everybody else in the world, and they don’t care what everybody else in the world thinks.

    If the Dems can push through this vast a measure, one about which they themselves don’t know much, what other laws can be foised on us via that route? These putschists have another three years to wreak havoc on the US. Our only hope is that their lack of respect for institutions, laws, and public will is going to boomerang against them badly enough to wrest control from them. This law, if “passed”, should be repealed. That makes a great issue to run on. Whatever Gibbs the Jester says.

  • Jack_Savage

    Two wars with two different goals and two different strategies and tactics.

    I agree with becker and Achance – the first thing that needs to be done if Repbublicans gain control is a purge of government that would make Stalin tremble. Anything remotely Democrat needs to be gone. Hell, anyone with a name that can be arranged to spell “Democrat” ought to be gone. This can be done under the radar, washed with the veneer of “consolidation” and “getting rid of duplicate departments and services” etc etc.

    The second battle in the first war is what the Democrats already do – anyone that gets a dime of federal money should be subject to a body cavity search at any time. Except this time, it will be all the community organizations, for-profit businesses and non-profits that feed at the trough (see Achance’s comment above). The advantage here is not that it will slightly disrupt the day-to-day business, the advantage will be that a lot of people will go to jail. Not a shot across the bow, a shot through the bow.

    The second war should be conducted in a totally different fashion. This will be the war on earmarks, back room deals and obfuscation when it comes to doing the people’s business. True governemt transparency is the mortal enemy of Democrats, and the country is in no mood to transfer a dime more in wealth to people whose whole life has been a series of bad decisions. This simple fact is that when the people of this country are presented with the truth, they prefer frugality.

    A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Thanks to the Dems for handing us the perfect opportunity on a silver platter.

    • Achance

      set a rule statutorily that requires all legislation to have a single subject title and that any amendments to or substitutes for that legislation be consistent with the title. You can game the system with page long titles, but those are pretty obvious and single subject titles eliminate a lot of the Christmas Tree legislation and the members saying “I had to vote for that awful thing so I could get this good thing for the district.”

      • Jack_Savage

        The only thing I worry about is that the career Republicans chafe as much as the career Dems at this idea. Hopefully there will be a lot of new blood / citizen legislators that will lead on this issue.

        I have thought a lot about your comments regarding how Republicans really don’t give a rip about how government works and cede control to Dem bureacrats, and you could not be more correct. I remember how having a “government job” used to be just a very slight notch above being on welfare or disability. We need to change that mindset, and train and encourage a bunch of decent people to enter government service like an undercover cop enters a drug operation, or a soldier enters a war zone- you are there to clean it up, set it right and make sure it doesn’t happen again for many generations.

        We are up against the Leviathan, and we have got to fight that way. It needs to be killed, not contained.

        • Achance

          and dedicated employees just below the appointee level in every government. They’re the ones that keep the government working and are the repository of its culture and institutional memory. But they live a hard and dangerous life whenever elections come around. If you’ve gotten between a Democrat constituency and something they want, your head is on the block when Democrats come to power and Democrats don’t let things like merit systems, whistleblower laws, or even union contracts stand in their way; those things are for keeping Republicans in line, Democrats are good people and those laws don’t apply to them. Career bureaucrats know this and know that being too cooperative with a Republican adminstration will get them fired by the Democrats. Don’t ask me how I know!

          Consequently, those people learn to keep a low profile and know that sometimes the fight isn’t worth happening. If you have a ministerial job, e.g., approval power over grants or contracts, payment authorizations, or hiring oversight and approval, and you know you’re going to displease a powerful constituency, you get the appointee above you to take the action and if you can’t, maybe you decide that your objections weren’t so well-founded after all.

          And once you reach the appointee level you have to have a relationship with your subordinates that allows them to feel free to tell you that they’re not comfortable with something. I know that when I got out there in the realm of “arguably legal” and very poltical, I just did it myself rather than having staff do it, but I was a pretty uncommon Republican political appointee in that I could actually do the technical work of my agency, most Republicans can’t. This is also an advantage that Democrats have in actual governance; they have lots of wannabe managers, directors, and commissioners in the bureaucracy that already know where the light switches and rest rooms are.

    • avgjo

      There should be entrenched a structure that prevents new entitlments from being set up unless the money is already there. No new spending based on future revenues, projections of ‘savings’, etc. This would castrate the Marxists.

      We the people need to set up a structure which allows us to keep tabs on these jerks even after they are voted out of office. Find out where they are working, where their spouses are working etc. Harangue them. Get them fired by bringing bad publicity to their new bosses. Make life impossible for them

      Notice how vindictive gov. policies are? Penalties, interest, lists of people who don’t pay taxes, etc? Well, it’s high time the tables turn.

      Getting these people to know that there is no guaranteed cushy life after politics is a sure-fire way to get them to do what we want.

      And that goes for the republicans as well.

  • robobbob

    A banana republic maam. For as long as you can keep it.

    If the GOP uses such vile methods, it should be to A) void everything done be team BHO and Pelosi, and then IMMEDIATLEY B) to pass what ever laws and regulations required to ensure that this perversion of the constitution never happens again.

    • animatorgirl

      the Republicans are on a one-way train to destroying the Republic. Emulating the Dems serves no purpose other than to undermine further our Constitutional basis for government, and opens the door to the destructive concept that any tyranny is acceptable if it is in the service of a fine objective that the majority supports. What, in order to save America, we must destroy it? Our actions are excusable because what they did was worse? Disgusting.

      If the GOP does NOT pass legislation strengthening and reaffirming the Constitutional constraints on the federal government, it will have been complicity in the destruction of America. I sincerely hope they’re aware of this danger and are seriously considering how to avoid it.