Herb Starr's blog
The Constitution
Posted July 31st, 2008 by Herb StarrThe declaration of independence was signed in 1776. The constitution was signed in 1787. Once free from some 150 years of foreign rule it took less than 11 years for our founding fathers to realize that independence brought with it a whole new set of problems. Thirteen squabbling colonies a vital nation did not make.
The fragile unity of the colonies held together by their mutual hatred and fear of the British before the revolution was rapidly coming apart after their defeat of the common enemy. Something had to be done. What was desperately needed was a new, powerful common purpose - a statement of goals for the nation sufficient in majesty to command the universal loyalty of all the colonies.
In one brilliant sentence they said it all on September 17, 1787.
"We, the people of the United States, in order to:
1) Form a more perfect union
2) Establish justice
3) Insure domestic tranquillity
4) Provide for the common defense
5) Promote the general welfare, and
6) Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.
These profound words, the preamble, lay out the very reasons why we have a federal government in the first place. The six objectives clearly delineate both the responsibility and authority of this unifying Federal government over all the separate colonies. No colony can oppose, ignore, disobey or relinquish subservience to these six mandates.
Too Much Government
Posted July 6th, 2008 by Herb StarrA classic conservative political ploy is to charge that our Federal government is too big, too powerful and too intrusive in our lives. This plays very well politically because the human condition is such that we all need someone to blame for both real and imagined injustices in our lives. Why not blame "the government" - it doesn't fight back.
It is also a very attractive conservative strategy because they never have to do anything about it except complain. They have discovered that if they just rant and rave against the size and cost of the Federal Government they gain significant political points without ever having to come up with any serious and meaningful solutions. They have done this successfully since Ronald Reagan's first presidential campaign.
If you are really interested in seeing how serious they are, consider the following.
Let's look at the size of the executive branch of our government. After ten consecutive years of Republican control in 1990, the executive branch had over 300,000 more civilian employees than when President Carter left office in 1980! How hypocritical!
Not only are the conservatives a bunch of hypocrites they are also dead wrong about our government. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that our government is too large, too powerful or too intrusive.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary
Posted June 2nd, 2008 by Herb StarrNo less a conservative than columnist George Will has observed that consumer spending is the engine that drives the economy, I agree.
The question is wouldn't our economy and the general welfare of our people be better served if more people could have more money in their pockets to spend without increasing labor costs? Logic would seem to say yes. I say yes.
Mr. Will seems to say yes also, but in the main, limits his advocacy for the cause to tax cuts. I see other ways far more effective and less damaging to our balanced budget efforts. Before we discuss how to put more money in more consumers pockets lets first demonstrate to all that this is a valid goal for our nation.
For purposes of this essay lets limit the discussion to whether or not we can all agree that the more citizens we have with disposable income beyond life's necessities of food, shelter, clothing and health care the better our economic growth and general welfare is served. In this effort let's ask a simple rhetorical question: which of the two following scenarios would likely generate the greater consumer spending and economic growth. Assume that $20,000 is a bare bones subsistence income, allowing for food, shelter, clothing and basic health care only.
Scenario A
100 people earning a combined annual income of $5,000,000 divided evenly at $50,000 each.
Scenario B
100 people earning a combined annual income of $5,000 000 divided at 99 people earning $20,000 ($1,980,000) and one earning $3,020,000.
Which of these two groups would likely spend more dollars on the following:
