Compromising for Bigger Government

For most members of Congress, finding compromise is typically a one sided debate: Should the government be expanded by this amount or that amount? The possiblity of actually reducing government is simply never entertained.

The recent debate over raising the debt limit is just the latest example of a long-standing tradition in Washington to achieve so-called compromise while deceiving the people and growing government. Never once was there any true debate among congressional leaders on whether or not government should be allowed to spend more, but that it simply must. And while Sen. Harry Reid believed that the only true compromise was his, every major plan proposed by both Republicans and Democrats alike aimed to raise the debt limit.

Washington’s version of compromise is analogous to being asked the question, “which fist would you rather be punched in the face with, the left or the right?” It is always a false choice. Either way the cause for limited government suffers while federal power continues to expand. This kind of "compromise" has given rise to the incremental growth of government time and again. Of course, as long as the deal is promoted as some kind of bipartisan achievement, it incomprehensibly becomes more acceptable to expand government.

It seems that the one thing Washington lawmakers are always willing to see eye-to-eye on is gutting the Constitution and bypassing the rule of law; it's practically their favorite pastime. Instead, what we need less of is this Washington style of compromise, which always ends up with a government bigger than it was before.  We must refuse to accept any agreement that doesn’t reduce the size of government.

The debate over the debt limit was indeed "compromised" from the very beginning simply because lawmakers never actually sought to seriously reduce spending and limit government in the first place. So Congress and the president can falsely claim to have heroically saved the country from a looming default because they were finally able to come to terms, but it changes nothing. The government has grown and can continue to spend us into disaster. Is that your definition of compromise?

End the PATRIOT Act

Members of Congress are once again proving just how much they despise American liberty. This week, both the Senate and the House with make critical votes on whether to extend certain freedom squelching provisions of the PATRIOT Act before its expiration date this Friday.

Last week, it was reported that Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid struck a so-called “backroom” deal that would essentially keep the PATRIOT Act alive for another four years. Despite failing to secure a long term renewal of the act earlier this year, instead only passing a brief 90 day extension, Congressional lawmakers seem determined to stay clear of the limited government mandate that so many Americans sought during last years' elections.

The main provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire on May 27 , 2011 include some of the worst attacks on the fourth amendment in US history. As Bruce Fein made clear in his statement before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty during a May 11 hearing on the PATRIOT Act:

Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizing roving wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence; section 215 authorizing orders to seize any "tangible thing" like books or computer hard drives to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; section 505 authorizing National Security Letters to seize customer records of financial institutions, credit bureaus, and telecommunications providers by the government's assertion of relevance to preventing international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities;

Too good to be true

For the ambitious Congressman, the Constitution has become a nuisance, a mere obstacle to be overcome or ignored rather than a guiding document of set limitations of power. Remaining faithful to their oath of office is not a priority; it is simply a formality.

However, House Republicans are now championing a new rule that requires all proposed legislation to be cited by powers within the Constitution as proof that they intend to restore constitutional integrity to Congress. That's all well and good, but unfortunately their claims do nothing to ease my skepticism.

A memo issued to the members of the 112th Congress by the Republican leadership states that:

A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution. The statement shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that purpose and be made publicly available in electronic form by the Clerk.

I’ll admit that this new rule is undoubtedly a good first step in the right direction in reining in the power of Congress; however it omits a key factor.

Politics in One Lesson

If you’ve ever read Henry Hazlitt’s timeless book Economics in One Lesson, you’ll recall that Hazlitt stresses that “the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Hazlitt cites the abuse of this particular lesson as the greatest of all economics fallacies.

While Hazlitt’s description is certainly accurate in regards to efficient economics, part of this principle may be well adapted in dealing with government policies on a more general spectrum. For instance, is not seemingly every piece of government legislation typically fueled by targeting a specific group for an immediate satisfactory gain regardless of the potential long term problems that may arise?

When Congress first considered the Patriot Act, was it not claimed to target only those who would support terrorists or specific groups posing similar threats? While it may have received an overwhelming amount of support initially aimed at quickly disrupting the chances of another seemingly immanent terrorist threat, the groundwork it was laying for future atrocities and abuses of civil liberties was overlooked. People were uneasy and eager to feel a sense of protection. Many were willing to relinquish certain liberties and rights for a false sense of immediate security.