But I cannot leave without a discussion of monetary policy.  Cong. Paul cannot End The Fed without an act of Congress.  But he would start with these two acts:

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

It will be good for monetary policy to implement many of the prior items.  Spending control, debt repayment, solvent Social Security and Medicare and non-interventionist foreign policy will help make monetary policy more libertarian. 

Education of the American people must continue.  YAL and Campaign for Liberty  are great allies in the struggle.  Get more involved.  Work for liberty candidates for local, state and federal office.  Run for office!  Speed the day when we’ll see a constitutionalist President.

• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 2
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING?
• HOW GOVERNOR JINDAL CAN WIN THE RON PAUL VOTERS (HINT: START WITH REAL ID)

However, there is plenty to do.  The President can appoint Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, ambassadors, judges and United States attorneys.  He or she MUST have solid constitutionalists in those positions.  Cong. Paul did not directly speak to the issue but I would suggest that upon election, turn the office-seeking on its head.  Use the transition team to find solid constitutionalists from the private sector, academia and a few from government, to fill those positions.  Go to them and ask them to consider a short time of service to their Republic.  Few will without a good reason turn down a fellow constitutionalist President. 

The good news is the Senate usually gives the new President a pass (absent moral or ethical lapses) on Cabinet officials.  This is true for judges sometimes, especially in the lower courts.  The bad news is that the constitutionalist administration will have less of a pass than a liberal one.   

The short-term answer may be recess appointments.  Fill all the vacancies in the Federal judiciary with recess appointments with solid constitutionalists and then when the time comes, ask the Senate to confirm them.  There will be one or two bad apples but the vast majority should be confirmable.  There will be plenty of politics and lovers of liberty will have to be vigiliant. 

Cong. Paul in his manifesto says that any time a vacancy or retirement occurs in the Federal bureaucracy, he would apply the “snow day rule”:  if the position is non-essential, simply not fill it.  Paul also would use executive orders in a different manner than any of his predecessors: 

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

I agree.  In fact, if a constitutionalist President (Paul or Johnson) is elected, I would be glad to serve as the assistant White House counsel in charge of reviewing all prior executive orders (I am an attorney and have some academic/scholarly credentials) for likely repeal!  I wouldn’t even have to move to DC.  I’d do my research from home and report to President Paul once a week or so with my results.  I’d only have to go back to FDR’s administration and I’d be done with humble service to the cause of liberty. 

I also agree that necessary executive orders can be recommended as legislation.  Treaties should also be reviewed (perhaps by the new special WH counsel Paul hired who works at home) for revision, reservation and repeal. 

Cabinet secretaries can use their power to grant state waivers to implement liberty and encourage diverse thinking on policy, eespecially in the field of health, education and welfare (wasn’t there an agency called that?  ) Paul calls for pilots to be armed:

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks  that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots.  Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.  However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result, very few pilots have gotten their licenses.  A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

Agreed!  Most pilots I would suspect are veterans and have a clean record.  I trust them to handle arms in appropriate ways.  That is only one example of clearing regulatory underbrush without congressional approval.  Another is to issue directives to the US Attorneys not to prosecute medical marijuana cases, cases where states have laws in place to deal with it and are dealing with it, and cases based on unconstitutional statutes.  

For my final post, I’ll speak to monetary policy.

• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 3
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 2
• RON PAUL PROVEN RIGHT AGAIN…

Eliminating federal involvement in K-12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

This will bring about a fierce struggle over who controls education:  Parents and local leaders or educrats.  Usually when someone suggests some reasonable idea like vouchers or easier home schooling access or charter schools, this is painted as “anti-public schools”.   Paul again suggests how to frame the debate:

But who is really anti-education?  Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level?  When the debate is framed that way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win.

I am not sure.  The educrats have plenty of ammunition to use to beat back constitutional educational reform.  Again, we must ask the question:  Is the educational system working now?  Let’s try something new.  Let’s try liberty.  But this will require every bit of our cunning and resources to prevail in the marketplace of ideas against the educrats and their mainstream media allies.

In my next post, we will discuss how President Paul can use Cabinet and judicial appointments and executive orders to turn back bad legislation and restrict federal power.

• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 4
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 5
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING?

Yet a pro-freedom President and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government.  Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase.  Their compromise is a 75 percent increase.  With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending.

 The budget would be a manifesto.  Budgets tend to be wish lists anyway.  Let’s make it a liberty budget.  Paul suggests six items in any liberty budget:

1. Reduce overall federal spending

2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military

3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare

4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt

5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states

6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

This budget would in all likelihood be declared DOA when it hit Congress by the leaders in Congress (barring a turnover of revolutionary proportions) and the mainstream media.  the forces of liberty must be ready to use its powers:  Our internet savvy, bloggers, local media, persuasion, town halls etc. to sway public opinion toward the liberty budget.  If necessary, President Paul must use his veto pen.  And be ready to shut down the government if need be.  The line should be: 

“I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state.  I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

I’d also send Vice President Gary Johnson out to speak to the boss, so to speak:  the American people.  Huge “Call DC” rallies would be organized through folks like all those who got Ron Paul the attention in 2008, the Campaign for Liberty, the YAL, as well as Tea Party leaders.  The budget is the showdown.  President Paul may well resign and admit the USA is too far gone if he cannot get a liberty budget passed.  This might be a good idea to suggest exactly that.  President DeGaulle tried it once or twice (although he went to the well too many times and had to quit) and it was initially successful.

In the field of education, it is clear that the system has failed.  We’ll cover that in my next post.

• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 5
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 4
• I DON’T AGREE OFTEN WITH BILL KRISTOL…BUT

All of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself.   In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement.  Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom.

All of you lovers of liberty out there are assembling the place to assist the future constitutionalist President.  He or she will have to gradually dismantle the welfare-warfare state over time to avoid extreme hardship to the needy until the churches and private charities can take over.  (Of course, I would say, not necessarily Cong. Paul, there will always have to be a safety net in place.)

Of course, there is no bailout for failed capitalists:

For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away.  I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

The election of a Ron Paul would be a political tsunami unmatched since the election of 1800 when Jefferson unseated the Federalists.  There would almost certainly be some coattails arising from the election, either by choice or by political necessity.  But the opposition would clearly arise:

Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress. 

I would suggest that the media would be no help.  The MSM would not support the end of the welfare programs.  Fox News might be more supportive but the foreign policy initiatives would irritate them and they would try to rally the GOP base against the constitutionalist Chief Executive.  But, there is one thing that can be done right away:

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his or say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. 

The President can then safely start to withdraw the “over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries.  Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people.”  (I am not sure about some deployments:  Korea for example may have to remain.  But many bases can be closed with treaties to allow use of local bases in the event of emergency, thus saving billions in dollars.)

Next post, I’ll review further how the constitutionalist President would negotiate with Congress over appropriations and the budget.

• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 5
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 4
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 3

• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 3
• LIBERTY IS ON THE MARCH!
• THE WINNER OF THE 2008 ELECTION WAS NOT OBAMA BUT…

The title is the nod to the extremely worldly (but alas extremely popular) movie, “Revenge of the Nerds”, but this may be the year of the nerd, dork, wonk, etc.  A friend advised me that DC is “Hollywood for ugly people” (a nod to yet another movie:  Because Washington is Hollywood for Ugly People) but regardless, The thing that Jindal, Ryan and Daniels bring to the table is an intense intellectual curiosity and a desire to solve problems. 

Cong. Ryan has a plan to get the nation out of debt and protect Medicare and Social Security.  Shawn Tully at Fortune has a useful synopsis of the plan and the man.  It’s not without some loss of benefits but that is part of the necessary sacrifice.  He wants to reform the tax system to have a choice – the regular tax return or a simplified tax return at either 10 or 25% with no deductions.  Even the CBO admits the Ryan plan will work.  But, Speaker Pelosi criticized it (Yes, that’s may be best evidence Ryan’s on the right track) as hurting the elderly:

Obama noted that Ryan had “made a serious proposal” to rein in the deficit and then praised him for at least addressing entitlement spending. Following those apparently peaceful words, Democrats launched a withering assault over the next three days as budget director Peter Orszag, Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all pummeled Ryan for threatening the safety net for the elderly and providing tax breaks for the rich.

Ryan elected to take on the President at the Health Care Summit:

Ryan got his chance to confront the President at the health-care summit Feb. 25. Seated across from Obama, Ryan addressed him directly with a six-minute, numbers-laden, wonkish analysis of the Senate bill that contradicted the administration’s pledge that the plan wouldn’t add to the mountainous deficit.

Ryan correctly stated that the bill projects that Medicare will lower reimbursements to doctors by $371 billion over the next 10 years, yet Congress would cancel those cuts in a separate bill, all part of an attempt to mask the true size of future deficits through “gimmicks and smoke and mirrors.” Obama steered the discussion away from Ryan’s numbers, and the White House hasn’t challenged his analysis.

The nerdy fun seems to be spreading to candidates.  Rick Snyder is a GOP candidate for Governor of Michigan.  His “One Tough Nerd” ad drew chuckles but also increased his polling numbers from less than 1 percent to 12 percent.  RCP explains this in the nerds article:

Snyder has gone from political zero (polling at 3 percent) to a potential-nerd hero. The ad is one big reason. And this story gets nerdier.

The Michigan firm EPIC-MRA recently polled likely primary voters. Only the contenders’ names were first read. Snyder placed third among the GOP candidates, at 12 percent. Then pollsters read candidates brief biography. The Gateway geek rose 10 points and took second place. Among “strong Republicans,” Snyder’s biography moved him from third to first place.

Here’s the ad.  Judge for yourself.  I like Snyder (I also like Michigan, too) and think maybe the issue is we need competence not flashiness.

• AN ENCOURAGING POLL
• GOVERNOR JINDAL ON HANNITY TONIGHT!
• WHO SAID WHAT ABOUT GOVERNOR JINDAL?

In these times of economic distress, massive job losse s, shrunken businesses, bloated governments and runaway public spending, we’ve been waiting for some politician (other than Ron Paul) to stand and tell the truth.

Smith is of course right about Ron Paul (who won his GOP primary with 80% of the vote on Tuesday).  But Smith was not talking about the Texas Congressman, he was talking about the bold step that Governor Chris Christie took in deciding to balance the state’s budget without raising taxes.  Christie was clear:

But behold! The newly elected governor of New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie, stood in front of 200 of his state’s mayors last week and told them basically that there is no more road down which to kick that proverbial can. In his speech at the New Jersey League of Municipalities, Mr. Christie began by calling the legislature’s $29 billion budget something out of “Alice in Wonderland.” He told the collected hizzoners that the old game of tax and spend was over. He described unhappy meetings in his treasurer’s office, where he was presented with 378 possible freezes and lapses to be used to balance the budget. He accepted 375 of them.

Like Bob McDonnell here in Virginia, Christie’s tough cuts and talk will not make friends with some groups:

No doubt there will be a political firestorm in New Jersey as the pinch is felt by politically powerful entities such as the teachers, police and firefighters unions. Whether he can survive tackling the growing fiscal crisis with actual solutions is the question.

This is virtually the same fight that will happen in Virginia.  I heard on the radio the question about how the high school football coaches will work for free as Gov. McDonnell has proposed and I have heard that people are complaining that McDonnell will keep rest areas open but cut education.  Conservatives and Republicans must stand behind Governor McDonnell even if we are niot sure we fully agree.  It is tough times.  He’s got to make the decision.  Let’s give him a chance. 

And Smith warns us the consequences:

Chris Christie will need a lot of public support in his efforts to put the Garden State’s house in order; with the public in New Jersey and all across the land depending on government largesse more than ever before, can that actually be expected to happen? A lot rides on the answer to that question. If he can’t succeed in this vitally needed reordering of government taxing and spending habits, who elsewhere will be able to, and what instead will happen?

Let’s support Bob McDonnell.

• GOVERNOR JINDAL ON HANNITY TONIGHT!
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 5
• CAN A CONSTITUTIONALIST PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING, part 4

Virginia Right! Welcomes Additional Blogger Sandy Sanders
By Tom White, on March 1st, 2010, at 10:00 am

I am pleased to announce that effective immediately, Hanover attorney Elwood “Sandy” Sanders has agreed to become a blogger with Virginia Right!

Sandy and I met about a year ago and have become good friends during that time. Sandy is an experienced Blogger and currently writes a blog, Jindal 2012 Blog which is also known as Conflicted Libertarian. He plans to continue his work on these blogs, so nothing will change for those that follow Sandy’s wisdom there.

Sandy has submitted numerous articles which I have published here, so he is not new to Virginia Right!. What Sandy brings to the table is a different perspective on Conservative politics. He could be described as a Jendal supporting Ron Paul leaning Christian Conservative, but his keen insight on legal issues such as the Melendez-Diaz Supreme Court case and his love of sports make Sandy Sanders a difficult man to pigeonhole.

While Sandy and I agree on a lot of issues and share a lot of core values, there are differences in our philosophies. And it is these differences that I expect will make Virginia Right! a more entertaining and informative blog.

Sandy is not constrained in any way in what he publishes on this blog. He is free to agree with my views, or disagree. We even discussed the potential for “dueling” posts. As I am a lifelong Indianapolis (Baltimore) Colts fan, and Sandy is a New Orleans Saints fan, it is clear that Sandy and I may often take different sides on many issues. But in the end, presenting more than one point of view will only expand a reader’s knowledge.

And for the record, my views and Sandy’s views are just that, our views. We each take credit (or blame) for our own posts, and those alone. So, if you like or dislike something we say, complement or chastise the appropriate blogger.

Welcome, Sandy!

I am humbled and honored.  No, I am not leaving Conflicted Libertarian!  We were at 24 yesterday among Ron Paul sites and THREE for Ron Paul blogs.  I hope the readers of Conflicted Libertarian will try out Virginia Right, too!

Random Posts

• BEST PART OF THE WINTER OLYMPICS HAS ALREADY OCCURRED!
• SAINTS DEFENSE NOT ABLE YET TO TOUCH BREES
• PERHAPS JINDAL/McDONNELL 2012?

It works the same way with bloggers; I do try to find others with a similar position that have expertise in their field.  Here’s one example:

I contend that the way to help the Olympic athletes get the resources they need is the free market.  This article from Art Thiel at seattlepi.com is certainly persuasive authority (as we lawyers put it) in my favor:

Long story short, a major, continuing overhaul of the USOC put more of the broadcast TV rights fees and sponsor cash in training centers, athletic-research science and Olympic operations, as well as supporting each sport’s national governing body.

That’s a big reason why the U.S. this closing weekend finds itself atop the Winter Games standings with a record 36 medals — the first time the U.S. is astride the winter standings since 1932.

This was the result of the Steinbrenner (Yes, that one, the owner of the Yankees) commission overhauling the USOC.   One of our remarkable Nordic Combined medalists, Billy Demong, the sole gold medalist, made this observation of the new Olympic attitude:

In his fourth and most successful Olympics, Demong, from Vermontville, N.Y., bore witness to the evolution of American winter success.

“I have seen a significant change,” he said. “Now, there’s a level of expectation and professionalism among athletes on the team. We’re here to win.

“There’s a lot of guys and girls who feel very comfortable in their sports. They’re competitors entitled to do their best. We’re doing the right things with the right athletes to raise expectations.”

 No entitlement mentality here.  No bureaucrat deciding who gets help; Here’s an interesting article in regard to the athlete the Canadian sports machine forgot.  (In fairness, perhaps this athlete was not very likely to medal; however, I admire his initiative and drive.  Maybe wiht the right help, he’d do better.)  The best gets help and if they get better, they get more help.  The USOC CEO agrees:

“Sponsors get more value when there’s more American success,” said Scott Blackmun, the USOC’s new CEO. “The stories from these Games increase the appetite that sponsors have for things Olympic. The main reason it helps is the ideals our athletes portray.”

Let’s cheer the USA team!  They showed that when free market/liberty principles are at work, there will be results.

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT!  I’ll be off line until Wednesday; new readers try out my old articles and comment freely!  But on Wednesday, I’ll have an important announcement for my loyal readers.

• BOBSLED SHOWING AT GAMES ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES!
• CURLING IS GREAT! AN EXCITING BRAINY SPORT MORE SHOULD TRY!
• COMMON (BUT UNWISE) PRACTICE TO MIX SPORTS AND POLITICS