Tag Archives: government

Rule of Law and Prosperity

Posted on by
Reply

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R, VA) has issued a report that discusses, among other things, the relationship between rule of law and national prosperity and freedom.  Some excerpts follow.

From

Less noticed, but perhaps even more important—especially to the over 20 million Americans currently out of work or underemployed—is the link between a breakdown in the rule of law and reduced economic growth and individual prosperity.

Property rights and rule of law are essential for the proper and efficient functioning of society and the economy.  Unambiguous laws and procedures provide a framework by which free people agree on the scope and reach of their government’s actions, whereas unclear laws or arbitrary enforcement undermine individual liberty and the notion of popular sovereignty.  Clear, transparent, predictable rules that are applied without preference or prejudice allow individuals to invest, build businesses, and create jobs.  When there is a breakdown in the rule of law, increased uncertainty leads to reduced investment and less growth.

Numerous economic studies have documented the relationship between a strong rule of law and economic growth. In 2008, The Economist published the following chart alongside a story entitled “Order in the Jungle.”

The chart aptly illustrates the strong relationship between adherence to the rule of law and economic growth.  As economist Hernando de Soto—a leader in the field of the impact of property rights and rule of law on economic growth succinctly stated: “So the origin of the rule of law— which will allow a modern nation to grow and so bring peace, stability, and prosperity to the world—is property rights.  And the rule of law will actually generate prosperity.”

And

In the United States, the ultimate law is the Constitution, which specifically provides how laws are to be enacted and requires the President to take care that the laws that are enacted are faithfully executed.  The laws of the United States establish the process whereby individuals can enforce their property rights and private contracts and provide the framework by which executive agencies are to conduct rulemakings and the other regulatory activities.

When “laws” are created without going through Congress; when laws are selectively executed; when an administration intervenes into the normal judicial process and diminishes an individual’s property rights; and when the normal regulatory process is circumvented, the rule of law is eroded.

All of this increases uncertainty.  Individuals, families, and businesses now not only face uncertainty with respect to the policy decisions made by government, but they face uncertainty as to how those decisions will even be made.  Numerous economic studies and surveys indicate that uncertainty itself (which is certainly increased with the breakdown in the rule of law) also hinders economic growth.

While Administrations of both political parties have been known to test the bounds of the limits of their power, the breadth of the breakdown in the rule of law in recent years has reached new levels.  In the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal‘s annual Index of Economic Freedom, the United States scores lower today on the rule of law than it did in 2008.  As the 2012 report notes, “Corruption is a growing concern as the cronyism and economic rent-seeking associated with the growth of government have undermined institutional integrity.”  Individuals and businesses are increasingly forced to rely on the courts to enforce their most basic substantive and procedural rights.

To

There is no excuse for this continuous disregard of legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers.  In some instances, President Obama attempted to garner legislative authority, failed and then acted unilaterally in defiance.  In other instances, the President never even sought to find consensus and instead ignored Congress and its authority from the outset.  In speeches, the President has proudly acknowledged that he has acted without Congress, contending that he has no other alternative.

This is no way to govern.  The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling.  After all, what would now prevent a subsequent President, with opposite policy predilections, from bypassing the checks on his own authority and enacting his own policies in this same manner?  The Founding Fathers wisely gave the President many powers, but making law was not one of them.  They understood that laws should not be made by one individual acting alone, but rather through elected representatives working to achieve consensus.

House Republicans have acted to prevent and overturn the President’s harmful actions in order to return economic growth, opportunity and certainty to the American people and American job creators.  However, the majority of the bills the House has passed are sitting idly in the Democrat-led Senate, without any action on the part of Democratic Leader Harry Reid or President Obama.

Throughout our nation’s history, presidents have sought common ground and achieved legislative success with opposing party leaders.  Many of the laws circumvented in this report were achieved in that manner.  Congressional authority must not be disregarded to suit political interests, create unpopular regulations and to avoid the hard work of bipartisan negotiation that has been a hallmark of our Republic since its inception.

Note that such measures as are required by the erosion/breakdown of the rule of law as bringing legal cases to court only adds to business’ and individual’s current costs and increases their uncertainty, since court outcomes are largely unpredictable.

RTWT.  It’s a long-ish read, but it also includes a list of current examples.

 

h/t Grim’s Hall

Power

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressives’ naked grab for it in the Senate: Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) intends to do away with the filibuster so that he and his fellows can ram through whatever they feel like, without regard for anything the minority party—or the American people whom these represent—might have to say.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell understands the travesty of Reid’s move:

[He] called Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to end filibusters on motions to proceed a “naked power grab” and an “affront to the American people” Monday.  He encouraged members “on both sides” to oppose Reid’s proposal “strenuously and loudly.”

Here’s what Senator Reid and then-Senator Barack Obama had to say on the matter in 2005, during the Bush the Younger administration:

Harry Reid: [T]he filibuster is not a scheme.  And it is not new.  The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.”  It is part of the fabric of this institution.  It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

…

It also separates us from the House of Representatives—where the majority rules.  And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

And the gentleman from Illinois:

Barack Obama, in an emailed response to a constituent: I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority — and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.  [Never mind Obama’s historical error; it’s well established he’s a mediocre student of history.]

Here he is, again, this time speaking to the National Press Club in April of that year about getting rid of the filibuster:

I remember what it was like the first several years that I was in the minority.  You couldn’t attach an amendment.  You could not get a thing done.  If you were in the minority, you might as well not have even showed up.  And then there was redistricting, and a few years later, the Democrats are in charge, and now the Republicans cannot get a thing done.  And the Democrats don’t have to pay them any attention whatsoever.

And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers—the House and the Senate—but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended[.]

Hmm….

Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

Who is sovereign in our country, government or We the People who employ that government?

Progressives like Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) seem to think that it’s government.

It’s [having referendums] probably been made a little too easy.  There was a requirement that required 50,000 actual physical signatures.  Because of the Internet that has been so easy to do electronically, that the legislature probably needs to revisit that.

Maryland radio station WBAL chimes in, reporting that:

Critics of the process say that a group of opponents can use the referendum process to overturn legislation they don’t like[.]

Yeah—it’s terrible that a questionable government act should be put to the government’s employer for approval or rejection.  Remember, while it may take a small minority to force the government to submit to the will of its employer, it still takes a majority of that employer to overrule their employee.  And if that majority does so, it’s an entirely appropriate exercise of the People’s sovereign authority.

This Is Entirely Appropriate

Posted on by
1

This is the response of Staten Islanders to Sandy and the nor-easter.

A lifelong Staten Island resident, Gennaro, is recruiting volunteers for the local Brown Cross and the Gateway Rotary Foundation to organize supply posts and dispatches along the island.  So far, they have an estimated 2,000 volunteers, many contractors, who are taking matters into their own hands by fixing homes, draining basements, and clearing debris.

Gennaro adds

We are not leaving our properties for other people to rebuild.  There is nowhere for these people to go.  You have to rebuild quickly.  We got to get back up.

This is private citizens and private enterprise acting first.  Government has a role, but it must come second.

Indeed, the promised Federal and state help has been notably absent from Staten Island—even that second-place role is going unfulfilled.  Without making judgments on the Federal or state agencies, they will always be late to the crisis relief and recovery effort.  Government performance on Staten Island simply emphasizes the necessity, as well as the morality, of local community response first and promptly.  Only those on the scene can act quickly.

These folks could still use lots of help, though.

Gennaro says they are in need of building supplies—not food—and private donations that can go directly to families.  He guarantees 90% will go directly to buying warehouse and building materials.  Things like electrical panels, circuit breakers, sheet rock, roofing, boilers, etc.

You can contribute here:

The Outcome

Posted on by
3

According to Fox News‘ exit polling and a Fox News interview (sorry about the lead-in ad) with Dick Morris (who had, the day prior to the election, predicted a Romney win at 9:1 odds), the American electorate has changed.  Morris had based his prediction on the electorate makeup of 2008 being an aberration; Tuesday’s results strongly imply that this is now the makeup of our electorate—2012 is not materially different from 2008.

In fact, the changes aren’t great in absolute terms; the black vote was 11% of the electorate in 2004, and the Hispanic vote roughly 8% then.  Those small changes, though, were enough to put Obama over the top, 51%-49% in the popular vote (the Electoral College outcome is a function of the discrete state by state allocation of those votes, despite the fundamental closeness of the popular votes in several states with large Electoral College contingents).

Here are the ethnic group numbers from that exit poll [the last column and row are added by me; numbers don’t sum to 100% due to rounding and because I omitted the 2% “Other” category]:

Are you:

Total

Obama

Romney

 % Total Electorate Voting Obama/Romney

White

72%

39%

59%

28%/42%

Black

13%

93%

6%

12%/2%

Hispanic/Latino

10%

71%

27%

7%/3%

Asian

3%

73%

26%

2%/<1%

Total Non-White % Voting Obama/Romney

21%/5%

 

With this breakout, the Democrats start out with a 4:1 advantage in the non-white demographic.  Even accounting for the black break-out being accentuated by the presence of a black candidate, it seems clear to me that the advantage is strongly for the Democratic Party—still nearly 4:1.

Morris suggests that the Republican Party needs to “change its positions” in order to reach these other folks; otherwise they’ll never win another election.

I disagree.  The conservative Republicans’ positions are sound.  What they need to do is a better job of communicating, a Republican weakness of long-standing.  They need actually to approach these groups and talk directly to them in their neighborhoods.  This is what the Democrats have been doing for years.

Mitt Romney made a speech to the NAACP, but neither he nor his representatives ever went into the local neighborhoods where blacks live.  He never talked directly to blacks.

Mitt Romney’s Spanish-speaking son made a few speeches to Hispanic organizations in Florida, but no one went into the neighborhoods there—or in Texas (which as a state went for Romney, but not the Hispanic population), or in Illinois, or in New York, or in California, or in…—to talk directly to Hispanics where they live.

Mitt Romney didn’t even pay lip service to the Asian demographic.

As I said, Republicans need to improve their communications skills, not alter what they stand for.  Those are sound principles, and they’ll draw all Americans, not just a select few.  Medicare, for instance, was painted as a huge vulnerability for the Republicans—their view that Medicare needed to be sharply revised in order to survive and their specific plan for achieving that revision were supposed to be Republicans’ undoing.  A look at the exit polling at the above link, though, shows the soundness of the Republican position: voters 65 and older went for Romney 56%-44%, and those 45-64—the group beginning to think about and to get serious about planning for retirement—went for Romney 51%-47%.

What are the Republican principles?  Christian Whiton offers a useful summary in a piece that also centers on communications:

…a society that wants to survive must not punish those who play by the rules or are successful.

…a private market allocates resources better than even smart Ivy Leaguers working for a government bureaucracy.

…the American century only ends when we decide we’re no longer exceptional in mankind’s history, and choose the European model of decadent decline over a destiny of freedom and self-reliance.

The principles are worth fighting for (or the United States is no longer that self-reliant, personally responsible, free market nation that it has been heretofore); the message needs to be brought to all of us, not just some.