Long Island’s own Peter King (R) plans to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for someone to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-ranking federal officials, including members of Congress.  Before I take on the nuttiness of the law itself, I have to ask, “What makes them so special?” 

Have we reached an epidemic of attacks on Congressmen that warrants special protection?  In the history of the United States Congress only five incidents where members have been severely hurt or killed, which is five too many, but it hardly calls for setting all members apart as a specially protected class of citizens.  The five were:

1. Representative Jonathan Cilley of Maine was killed in a duel with Representative William Graves of Kentucky after accusing Graves of bribery on the House floor (1838).
2. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was beaten with a walking stick by Representatives Preston Brooks and Laurence Keitt, both of South Carolina (1856).
3. Puerto Rican Nationalists stormed the capital on March 1, 1954 and fired from the gallery to the floor of the House, five Congressmen were wounded, Alvin Bentley o f Michigan, Ben Jensen of Iowa, Clifford Davis of Tennessee, George Fallon of Maryland, and Kenneth Roberts of Alabama.
4. Representative Leo Ryan of California traveled to Guyana to investigate the goings on in Jonestown, where cult leader Jim Jones set up shop.  They were ambushed and killed by Jones’ followers and the entire community soon committed mass suicide (1978).
5. Gabrielle Giffords, who we pray will have a speedy recovery (2011).

Looking at this history, being a member of Congress looks to be a lot safer than a number of other occupations.  Try to relax, people.  And if you can’t, remember the words of Harry Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

King’s Law

A few years ago, I worked for a small consulting firm advising small businesses.  I am going to present one of my days at that firm with the hypothetical assumption that I was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and was so armed on this day.  Everything else in my hypothetical story actually happened.

After a busy morning I felt the urge for a coffee break.  I was working at the firm’s main office and there was a Starbucks about two blocks away, down a hill.  It was a nice day so I took a stroll down.  Upon arriving at the Starbucks I got on line to order a venti black coffee.  I thought it odd to see a dog in the store so my eyes followed the leash to see who’s dog it was.  Standing about six feet to my left, perusing the CD rack in the store was none other than William Jefferson Clinton, 42^nd President of the United States with, I assume, Buddy the dog.  Did I just walk myself into a felony, as I was certainly within 1,000 feet of a certain high ranking official, and within about fifteen feet of at least one Secret Service agent at the door of the store.  Okay, I didn’t know he was in there so, technically, I didn’t knowingly get within 1,000 feet of him while armed, but I certainly knew he was there and I was six feet away and armed.  Do I make a fast break for the exit to sprint until I am at least 1,000 feet away?  Would that alarm the Secret Service agent?  Would someone get shot or go to jail for no good reason?

Is the law reciprocal?  Can we demand that no politician can knowingly approach within 1,000 feet of anyone who is armed?  That might have been one way to stop ObamaCare.  Ring the Capital building with law abiding armed citizens no more than 1,000 from each other and presto!  Congress can’t cross the line and go into session.

Seriously, folks, the best thing that Congress can do is pass a law that they will not pass any laws related to what happened in Tucson, for at least 90 days.  By then we might actually have more facts of what happened and what broke down, before trying to fix something.  By the way, what are the odds that Loughner would obey a 1,000 foot limit, or whatever gun restrictions Congress can dream up?  This was a very disturbed individual who had his behavior on full display for about six years and nothing what done to either help him or institutionalize him.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill.  Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it.  The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president.  This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government.  Here is my analysis.

The Case in Favor of Direct Election of the President

The commenter and the website for the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill make several points in favor of the change.  In my view it boils down to the following:

1. In the current system, after the primaries, candidates only campaign in a handful of competitive states and ignore the rest where one candidate is either far ahead or far behind.
2. The Electoral College that we have today, was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers
3. This does not abolish the Electoral College
4. It does not require a Constitutional Amendment
5. The power of states are neither increased nor decreased
6. The National Popular Vote bill would end the influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states
7. The current system does not provide a check on the “mob”

This seems pretty compelling.  Most polls show that this idea is strongly favored over the Electoral College that we have today.  However, who is being asked the question?  In the federal system of government that the Founders designed, the people did not have the power to directly elect the president, so asking someone who doesn’t have power if they would like it, is like asking someone who is hungry if they would like some food.  Let me present my case against it.

The Case against the Direct Election of the President

The first argument that somehow having the direct election of the president would compel candidates to actively campaign across the country is stated but not proven.  If the outcome of the election is determined based on who has the most votes, what would compel a candidate to campaign in Montana or Alaska?  There just aren’t that many people in  those states and are we to believe that if a candidate does not show up in a state to campaign that the citizens there are going to stay home and not vote? That is absurd.

The more likely scenario is that candidates will focus on major media markets.  If you take Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., not the cities but the media markets, you will cover about 25% of the population of the U.S.  Add Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, and you probably don’t have to campaign anywhere else to have a shot at reaching enough of the popular vote to win.  Those in favor of this proposal make no compelling argument otherwise.

The second argument that the Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers is a myth.  They created the Electoral College, they left the method of choosing the electors up to the states.  “The Framers not only rejected the direct popular election of the President, but also left it to the state legislatures to determining how the states’ electors were to be appointed.” (Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.185).  This raises several points.

If the Founders specifically rejected the direct election of the president how can the supporters argue that this will pass Constitutional muster without an Amendment?  Also the argument that it does not abolish the Electoral College may be true, but it renders it meaningless, which is the same as abolishing it.  If the NPV bill is adopted by all the states, the outcome of every presidential election going forward would be a vote of 538-0.  Anyone who thinks that is more than a rubber stamp is deluding themselves.

The argument that this does not require a Constitutional Amendment, which I believe I have refuted, is based on the argument that states can band together in compacts and agree on the all for one selection of electors.  The supporters point to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution in support of this.  However, this clause states that the approval of Congress is required.  Furthermore in “United States Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), the Supreme Court declared that state compacts require congressional approval only if they ‘encroach upon the supremacy of the United States.’”  (Heritage, p. 179).  What could be more of an encroachment than the states banding together to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a Constitutional amendment?

Federalism recognized the national government and each of the state governments as sovereign entities.  Therefore the voters in one state determining the electors in another state would also likely draw constitutional challenge.  If all the voters in Texas chose candidate A, but the national popular vote chose candidate B, under NPV the electors from Texas would vote for candidate B against the wishes of the people of Texas.

The Cato Institute studied the NPV proposal and found that about an equal number of states would garner more candidate attention from this proposal as would lose attention.  It looked at the electoral power of the states under both systems.  Under the current system it considered each state’s power as the current electoral votes as a percentage of the total number of electoral votes.  Under the NPV system it looked at the population of eligible voters as a percentage of the total number of eligible voters.  In their analysis twenty states would have greater influence under NPV among them Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois; thirty states would lose influence among them Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Louisiana; one state, Alabama would be unchanged.  So the argument that smaller “flyover” states would suddenly garner more attention is not borne out by the analysis.

The last argument is a check on “mob rule,” which oddly was the purpose behind the design of the Electoral College in the first place.  The argument against this is best illustrated by a hypothetical example.

Let’s say over the next six years there is a massive migration to California and at the same time NPV is approved in every state.  Maybe California finally gets marijuana legalized and maybe they even declare it a fundamental right that every Californian is entitled to a free pound of the stuff every year.  The migration results in 51% of the population living in California.  Now in 2016, governor Jerry Brown decides to run for president.  On Election Day, everyone in California lights up a spliff and heads to the polls to vote for Jerry Brown.  The vote in California is unanimous.  Elsewhere in the country everyone is shocked at what is taking place in California and votes for another candidate, say, Marco Rubio.  The popular vote is 51% for Jerry Brown, 49% for Marco Rubio.  Rubio carries 49 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia.  Jerry Brown carries one state, California.  In the system we have today, Brown would get 54 Electoral votes and Rubio would get 484 and easily win the presidency over the “mob rule” in California.  But under NPV, Brown wins 538 -0.

Okay, forward to 2024 and let’s say the population has remained the same as have the voter sentiments, but another census has come and gone so the House of Representatives and subsequently the electoral votes are reapportioned.  If you take 51% of 435, gives California 222 plus 2 electoral votes for a total of 224 electoral votes.  Now the same election is held with Bill Maher running for president from California and Alan West from Florida running against him.  When the smoke clears the results are the same, Maher with 51% of the popular vote and West with 49%.  In the Electoral College, as it exists today, West would win 314 to 224, again carrying 49 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, while Maher carries one state.  However under NPV, Maher would win 538-0.  Therefore NPV enforces mob rule rather than preventing it.

The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers designed our form of government out of a mistrust of power.  They designed the system so that the people would directly elect the House of Representatives and they also gave control of the purse to that body.  They designed the Senate to represent the interests of the sovereign states, until the progressives abolished that with the seventeenth amendment.  They designed the system where the Electoral College would choose the president, but left it to the individual states how they would choose their electors.  They designed the system where judges would be chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the senate.

The Electoral College was a way to protect the voice of small states from the tyranny of the majority.  What the progressives want to do is to follow up what they did with the seventeenth amendment.  Instead of having fifty-one election districts for president, represented by the states and the District of Columbia, they want to have one election district consisting of the entire nation.  Why not then abolish the state boundaries and the states themselves?  State capitals can then become district offices of the federal government carrying out the directives that come down from Washington. 

This is not the great country our Founders gave us.  It is moving this country to a omnipotent federal government where the individual has no voice of consequence and no liberty either.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

I was having lunch with a colleague the other day and the conversation turned to the economy. He spoke of some recent analysis of the number of jobs that would be lost if the Big Three failed.  He recounted not just the employees of the auto companies themselves, but the employees of their suppliers, advertising firms that produce car ads, and on and on.  His final tally was well over 1 million jobs lost.  He concluded by saying it would make the current financial crisis a walk in the park.

Getting enough exercise?

Does that mean that we are all going to start walking?  Not that that would be a bad idea, we could all stand to lose some pounds, but for someone who has a 23 mile one-way commute with no option for mass transit, it’s just not going to happen.  So what do we do?  Well, one of several scenarios is going to happen.

Scenario 1:  The Big Three Close Their Doors

If this scenario came about, what would we do?  We would go buy Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, Volkswagens, etc.  Those companies would have to scale up to fill the void caused by the Big Three closing their doors.  That demand would need people.  So a significant number, but by no means all, of the laid off workers from Detroit would move to North Carolina, Alabama, and other points south, and join these auto companies at their U.S. plants.

Likewise the suppliers would form new alliances to supply these car companies, as would all the other ancillary companies that currently support Detroit.  Would jobs be lost?  Yes.  Would it be anywhere near the number of jobs my friend projected?  No.

Scenario 2: The Big Three Reinvent Themselves

The liberty of the car companies to reinvent themselves is constrained by government regulations.  Surprise!  If the Big Three have any hope of reinventing themselves, they have to have the freedom to do so.  Start by eliminating the CAFE standards.  CAFE, which stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, is the mileage standards dictated by the government that the auto companies must comply with or face heavy fines, draining more money from the Big Three’s coffers.  So for every car that the Big Three build that may get 20 mpg, they may have to build and sell perhaps 3 that get 30 mpg, in order to meet the standard.  But what if they can make money on the 20 mpg car, but they lose money on every 30 mpg model?  What if the reason they can’t make money is because of their labor costs per vehicle, their pension costs per vehicle, their health care costs per vehicle, when added up are too high compared to their foreign competitors.  They are basically forced by the government to make an unprofitable product.

Why not abandon the CAFE standards?  Let Detroit build the cars and trucks that they can make at a profit.  Let the foreign manufactures make cars that they can make at a profit, including high mileage cars.  Let the American people have the freedom to choose which they want.  As the price of gasoline climbs as it did, and will again, people will want to buy high mileage cars, hybrids, electric cars, but they will also want to buy SUVs, luxury cars and light trucks.  Why does a particular manufacturer have to produce all kinds?  When has government ever made the right call on what products to produce? (Hint:  think of all the five-year plans and Great Leap Forwards from the Communist world).

Scenario 3: The Government Bails Out the Big Three

The government prints up a bundle of cash, $25 billion or more, gives it to the auto companies and hands the IOU to you and me.  The new Democratic Congress and Administration will toe the line for their backers in the environmental movement and demand higher CAFE standards for the auto companies in the interest of addressing: our dependence on foreign oil; green house gases; and helping consumers.  This will put increased pressure on the Big Three to make more unprofitable products and we will find ourselves back in the same place a few years hence.  More liberties will be vaporized as the government appoints a czar to oversee the auto companies to be sure they are building the right products, that management is not getting paid too much money, and well let’s face it, they would basically be nationalizing the auto companies.  Management talent would dry up, and socialism would make greater inroads into the U.S. economy.

The Best Scenario

The Big Three file for bankruptcy, if that is what they need to do.  The stockholders would probably be wiped out, the management team would be replaced, and this will let them re-negotiate their labor agreements.  Congress and the new Administration realize that people will want to purchase cars with higher mileage as the price of gas climbs regardless of any government requirement.  There is no justifiable reason that any particular auto company has to build a particular car because the government says so.  Achieving this state of enlightenment, Congress repeals the CAFE standards.  With the liberty to manage the company to make a profit rather than meet the constraints of a bevy of interest groups, a more energized management team takes the reins, and returns the Big Three to competitiveness.

Drawing a line in the Sand

If we don’t take a stand here and now, every company that wants a cash cushion will be working the halls of Congress to get their hands on your money.  There is not enough to go around.  In addition, many of the problems we are facing were created by government initiatives.  The mortgage mess was not the result of not enough regulation but by government programs that compelled lenders to give loans to people who could not afford them.  Detroit’s problems are a result of CAFE standards and onerous union contracts.  Since government created many of these problems why do we think that government knows how to fix them?  What we need to do is tell them to back off and let the free market work.