When was the last time you heard a politician tell a voter that a request is outside the scope and responsibility of the government?
The mortgage meltdown has disrupted financial markets throughout the world. As we assess our own financial condition we ask, what is the root cause of the financial crisis?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We [Democrats] had nothing to do with this.” This is a fallacious statement and she knows it.
Many financial gurus point to the Carter era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that established the notion that government had a responsibility to provide home loans to unqualified buyers. This faulty notion was expanded during the Clinton Administration and as a result thousands of unqualified people were playing the role of homeowners. These toxic loans caused the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the subsequent failure of numerous other banks. But the CRA was not the root cause of the financial failure.
To find the root cause we need to go back to our high school civics class. When I took civics in high school we studied the U.S. Constitution and learned the limited power of the federal government. Our founders knew that if left unchecked eventually government would replace private endeavors to the detriment of liberty and economic growth. Our Founders envisioned a government of strictly limited powers. These powers are clearly specified in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that the U.S. Government has a responsibility to provide homes for anyone. But you wouldn't know it from the legislation proposed, passed, and signed into law. But we can't place all the blame on the politicians. After all the most asked question a politician hears is, “What can you do for me?” This attitude from the public has corrupted our politicians. Politicians are programmed to please. When have you ever heard a politician tell a voter that a request is outside the scope and responsibility of the government? So if politicians think the public wants something, even if it isn’t the government’s responsibility, the politicians will disregard their oath of office to get votes.
A Pew Center study found that a large majority of people felt that things “run by government are usually inefficient and wasteful, and that Washington's presence in our daily lives is too large.” That coincided with what Democrat pollster Stanley Greenberg said, “the message that government in general is incompetent.” H.L. Mencken went even further when he wrote, “All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation . . ..” So it is evident that the public knows that the government is too large, too inefficient, and too wasteful yet they keep asking for politicians to "do more for me."
Just as our founders feared, the federal government grew, encroached in the private housing market, and has jeopardized our economy. I have yet to hear any of the politicians that lowered the lending requirements that caused this mortgage meltdown acknowledge any responsibility. Total denial of any responsibility is the mantra of the politicians.
quixote@covad.net
Read more articles by Jack Ward
I want something from government. I want them to get the hell out of my way!
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 14, 2008
I will echo Ivan. Problem is that the way I read the Constitution most of the laws passed and commissions established are unconstitutional because the states never delegated those powers to the federal government. To make this more of an issue we have Supreme Court Justices that believe the constitution needs to be interpreted to meet the times instead of following the method that was created for the constitution to evolve to meet the times…amendments. But that is politics, if you can't win by following the rules find a way to avoid the rules. Thus judicial activism became the new religion.
Comment by Mickey G | October 14, 2008
Thanks Mickey
You mention one of my pet peeves. The ammendment system. Maybe they don't teach it any more, but why is it that after all these years of hearing about a "woman's right" that we do not see a move toward an ammendment? I wonder how many voters know that the Constitution has 27 amendments, the last one passed in 1992. And that not one of them mentions abortion or free health care.
Mayor Bloomberg says it's "not democratic" to restrict his time in office to two terms. An astute commentator said it's also not democratic to allow free speech, but we do it.
Years ago I noticed people writing on the Internet things like LOL, ROTFLMAO, and my favorite RTFM. Maybe we need a new one? RTFC.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 14, 2008
Jack Ward's got it right, especially the part of the Imperial Federal Government (my term) violating The Constitution (which is what I've been saying for the longest time). He also hits on the people who keep demanding something from the government. In the end this combination will spawn a totalitarian government.
Comment by NHGrouch | October 14, 2008
The one egregarious mistake the Founding Fathers made was leaving out term limits. Perhaps there were those opposed to term limits back then, but it seems it would've been more likely to pass then than now.
Republicans were able to get term limits passed mostly due to the fact that the most serious breach of tradition occurred with FDR being elected four times. Otherwise, no one would've thought to even bring up the issue.
However, the presidency, despite all its publicity, is the place where term-limits is least needed. Congress is simply out of hand! These career politicians stay in Washington so long, they do not know what party they belong to anymore. They form friendships with other guys because, in the end, they are all human beings. And also, they all need each other to keep their boats afloat. Without their friendships, they cannot pass their bills and without their bills, they cannot get their lobbyist support. The corruption is pretty bad, but it's enabled by the lack of term limits. Since you can't boot out the bad blood, it festers and contaminates the pool.
However, getting congressional term limits to pass in Congress might require a miracle.
Comment by Anderson | October 14, 2008
[…] are clamoring for the government to "do something". Indeed, as Jack Ward over at the Intellectual Conservative put it, "When was the last time you heard a politician tell a voter that a request is […]
Pingback by Ron Paul was Right - Bailouts are Disastrous :: Liberty Maven | October 15, 2008
Thanks, Jack. I'll admit I've fallen into the trap of thinking it's a bad thing for a politician not to have ready answers to every question or problem of every American citizen, when really, half the time it simply isn't the government's responsibility. Do you ever think we'll have a candidate with enough gumption to make that statement, and if so, how will it change things? Or will both our conservative and leftist illuminati politicians always perpetuate false expectations that breed discontent, not to mention government encroachment?
Comment by jeanedcrusader1 | October 16, 2008
jeanedcrusader1
Oh, it happened in 1964 when the truthful candidate got 38% and the winner got 61%. That was enough to prevent the truth from raising it's ugly head for a while. But as always it's not the candidates we should fault, it's us the voters. Never forget that Hitler was elected!
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 16, 2008
Anderson, just one egregious mistake? I must disagree. The one you cite about term limits is nothing in my view to the one relating to taxes, tariffs & other gov't interference in the market. Had the country's system been set up to be paid for by voluntary means in the first place (rather than tax, no matter how little it was back then), things would be vastly different now. The U.S. is looking so much like a European nation these days it will soon be invited into the EEC.
Comment by AMAI | October 19, 2008
There are some folks that claim the federal income tax is unconstitutional, even one that won in court although most have lost.
Comment by Mickey G | October 20, 2008
Total agreement here with the over-petitioning electorate being served by an overreaching government. I think the argument can be even further condensed to stupid greed as root cause(which our Constitution was indeed intended to check). Here's a turn from another forum on how someone else sees some of the finger-pointing:
http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=1959
Comment by michaelbp | October 20, 2008