Constitution? What Constitution?
The President
of the United States fired the President of General Motors
Corporation over the weekend. This would have been unthinkable even
a decade ago. But, things have changed and, apparently, this doesn't
bother most of the American people or the great majority of the mass
media's talking heads. However, it is troublesome for several reasons.
Where is the Constitutional power granted to the President of the
U.S. to make such decisions? There's nowhere that I can see that
there's a clause which, even given the twisted reasoning lawyers are
so proud of, gives the Executive the power to reach into the board
rooms of private corporations and pick and choose who will be allowed
to head up those organizations. Surely no one can argue with a
straight face that the Commerce Clause grants the President this sort
of power. If it does then there is no limit on the powers of the
Federal government and no one is safe from the exercise of arbitrary
government power. For if the President can fire the head of General
Motors, then there is nothing to prevent him from firing the head,
or, indeed, any employee, of any business in America. An extremely
dangerous precedent has been set over the weekend and a large number
of the American people, if not an outright majority, are applauding the
move; indifferent to the potential harm that such power can do to
everyone in the country. Instead, the State's propaganda machine
continues to spout the party line: the move was “necessary” in
order to give President Obama's plan to save the domestic auto
industry a chance to succeed politically; Rick Wagoner was too “old
school” General Motors to be able to make the changes to the
company that the President has deemed necessary for the corporation
to be considered for nationalization, er, excuse me, more "bridge loans"; the firing “sends a message”
to the automakers that it is “no longer business as usual” to
quote one commentator on NPR yesterday.
The only
person who seems upset by President Obama's firing of Mr. Wagoner is
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who seems almost offended by the
move. This is ironic in that Governor Granholm was one of the prime
cheerleaders for a Federal bailout of the Detroit automakers.
Apparently, the good governor of my state overlooked the fact that
granting the Federal government unconstitutional powers by way of
allowing it to “lend” money to individual companies, would lead
to further abuses of power. Was she really so naive as to think that
the Federal government would not impose all sorts of new rules and
regulations upon the companies that it was moving to “save”? Did
she really imagine that the Federal government would not seek to
exercise that power in such a way as to strike fear into the hearts
of any in the business community who might oppose it? If that's the
case it's no wonder that the State of Michigan is in the severe
economic trouble that it finds itself. Of course, even the good
governor's objections to the President's action is not based on
Constitutional or other legal grounds, but on the fact that Rick
Wagoner is a “good man” who was, according to the governor,
leading GM out of its troubles.
There is an
extremely dangerous mindset growing in this country – that only the
Federal government can solve the nation's economic ills and that it
must be granted virtually unlimited powers in order to be able to
accomplish this goal. Almost no one is heard objecting to the vast
expansion of power over the nation's economy that has occurred over
the last few months. There is no longer any debate as to whether or
not the Federal government has the Constitutional authority to
undertake any particular action. No, the debate is now only over how
much money a certain program is going to cost and what group it will
favor when put in place. We are seeing the culmination of the many
precedents that we've allowed our presidents, ever since at least the
days of Franklin D. Roosevelt's tenure, if not earlier, to set in the
direction of increasing the amount of power wielded by the occupant
of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The President is now looked
upon as the one person upon whom all of the nation's hopes, fears,
and troubles lie. To paraphrase (and greatly condense) an article
from Reason Magazine
sometime last year, Americans are so used to placing all blame or,
conversely, all accolades upon the President for whatever is
happening that the Presidents over the years have found it more and
more easy to argue that they “need” all the power in order to
match the supposed responsibility they have for everything that is
going on. The cultural trend away from persons accepting
responsibility for their own actions and, instead, placing that
responsibility on some third party is finding its logical conclusion
here. If individual Americans are not accountable for their own
actions then they do not need power to decide how to live their
lives: that power should, by rights, be given to the person who is
primarily accountable for everything that goes on – the President
of the United States. It is not right, constitutionally, morally, or
ethically, but it is now a fact of life. The government of the
United States, in the person of the President, has asserted that it
has the right to dictate the smallest details of the operations of
businesses and the manner in which individual citizens may live.
Many
people will say that I'm being overly-pessimistic, that the Federal
government will not make it a habit to fire corporate executives, or
set business policy, or interfere in matters of citizen's private
affairs. Those who maintain that idea are sorely lacking in
historical perspective and understanding of the nature of the State.
A few examples of how Federal power has expanded over the decades
should be sufficient to show the trend. When the income tax was
first put in place, in 1913, it was limited to 1% on income above
$3,000 (a large income for the period) rising to 7% at $500,000 and
the people were assured that there was no reason to think the rates
would ever increase. As of 2008 the lowest tax rate is 10% for those
making less than $8,025 per year to 35% for those making over
$357,701 per year and those rates will have to increase in order to
pay for the Obama regime's “economic stimulus” packages. Indeed,
we've already been told that $250,000 per year is to be considered as
making too much money. (Figures from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
The New Deal brought with it the minimum wage, first set at $.25/hr.
it covered only workers directly engaged in interstate commerce or
those producing goods sold in interstate commerce, the minimum wage
has grown to $7.25/hr. and covers virtually every worker in America.
(figures from: http://www.dol.gov/ESA/minwage/chart.htm)
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is another
example of the growth of Federal power and interference in the lives
of citizens and ways in which businesses may operate; with precise
standards set for such things as the height above the floor for fire
extinguishers, the construction of ladders, and the placement and
types of myriads of safety equipment – even though there is no
constitutional justification for the agency. The ubiquity and power
of the Federal government is such that most people don't even stop to
think whether or not that government has any right to operate as it
does – they simply acquiesce and attempt to carry on as best they
can. To believe that the Federal government, especially in light of
the furor over the retention bonuses paid to AIG employees, will not
continue to expand its power in what was once called “the private
sector” is the equivalent of believing that the local McDonald's
will suddenly appear with three stars in the Michelin guide.
Now
that President Obama has established that he has the authority to
fire the heads of corporations we can expect to see yet more
interference in the operations of private enterprises, in particular
those which have accepted the poison pill of Federal bailout funds.
Furthermore, I will not be surprised to see the definition of
“Federal aid” expanded to include taking advantage of so-called
“tax loopholes”. The reasoning will be relatively
straightforward for Washington. We have already been told,
repeatedly, that paying Federal taxes is patriotic. It follows,
therefore, that failure to pay the maximum Federal tax one may be
eligible for is unpatriotic. Taking advantage of “tax loopholes”
is to avoid paying the maximum tax to the Federal government.
Therefore, taking advantage of “tax loopholes” is unpatriotic in
that it amounts to taking money from the American taxpayer. As we
know from the actions of the Federal government up to this time,
taking money from the American taxpayer gives the Federal government
the right to determine how a business may operate. Thus, the power
of the Federal government, which will become ever more hungry for tax
revenue, will be extended. And, again as the recent AIG case
attests, one cannot rely on Congress not to at least attempt to
change the rules retroactively; so that what is permissible today
will be illegal tomorrow, in spite of the Constitutional ban on bills
of attainer and ex post facto laws.
President
Obama has nearly completed the job of destroying the U.S.
Constitution in the arena of what was formerly considered “private
activity”. He is doing for Federal regulatory agencies what the
G.W. Bush regime did for Federal law enforcement and espionage
agencies with the PATRIOT ACT – extending the power of the State
and destroying the foundation of civil liberties that this nation was
founded upon. The truly sad part is that the American people are
largely applauding him as he does so.