Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GOVERNMENT: Big Government is the enemy of democracy

Letter by Joyce C. Hamrick, University Place on April 30, 2010 at 1:35 pm with 41 Comments »
April 30, 2010 1:35 pm

Our founders were determined that power could never be focused in a central government. The Constitution lays out a definite pattern of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, with explicit limited power in the executive branch. They were well aware of the corruption that flows from power too narrowly focused, leading to tyranny. Primary power was vested in the hands of the people and the states.

Our founders suffered immense personal peril to escape from the tyranny of big government. The new government was carefully planned to ensure freedom from government intrusion. This led to success not seen under heavy-handed and tyrannical central government. Freedom allows creativity and entrepreneurship, from which flows economic advantages to all of society.

There has been erosion of the separation of powers. Much additional power has been given over to the president, including environmental protection, a national housing program, agriculture, land and resources, etc.

Over the past year and a half, this transition to centralized power has proceeded as though on steroids. Central power has taken over banks, auto companies, health care, student loan programs, etc. As our founders predicted, this deviation from their careful program of checks and balances has led to increased corruption that has been openly displayed by the careless spending of taxpayer dollars, by the pandering to special interest groups in bills passed by congress and the “buying” of votes from Congress members.

I am fearful for our future.

Leave a comment Comments → 41
  1. Roncella says:

    Joyce, Your concerns are right on. Why does President Obama keep appointing more and more czars ? The Czars are not vetted through the Congress in hearings before they are assigned to their jobs given to them by Obama.

    Bills are written behind closed doors then alot of wheeling and dealing Chicago style happens and the Congress is told to vote yea and read the bill later when you have time.

    Many of the Czars are not what most of us would consider main stream, they are Communists, Socialists, extreme leftest, some have never held a regular job except for Government assignments.

    Hopefully citizens will take the congress back after the November elections, this is the only way to slow down the far left from pushing America to a Socialist Form of Government.

  2. mikemcdonnell says:

    The Middle Class = Democracy

    No middle class, no democracy… the middle class is being squeezed out of existence.

    Wealth Gap Is Increasing, Study Shows
    The rich really are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, a new University of Michigan study shows. Rising inequality isn’t new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office.

    But what happened under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth — and they know it. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070807171936.htm

  3. Joyce you are spot on. Please note that no lib objection to your letter will mention the following word as something to strive for: freedom. The following word will not be mentioned at all: tyranny. Let’s watch.

  4. And, if I wrote the same thing about George Bush, what would yhou say. It was indeeed true that in Bush’s presidency, power at the central level was consolodated to an unprecedented degree. Bush hired more “czars” than Obama probably ever will. Bush perfected the idea that a president could change the meaning and intent of a law against Congressional intent by a signing statement. The only reason banks were taken over and sold to other private banks, by the way, is because of the absurd view that there is no role for the federal government in regulating the corruption of big corporations that have the power to enslave us all. During the period of reaganomics, the top 150 banks were consolodated into just a few mega-banks. The top five banks control 76% of our Gross National Product, and that is jsut fine with the Republicans who do not want to have them regulated. keep believing that it was the fault of Obama and bring back the Republicans. You will see what their fight against “big government” really means – enslavement to the big banks and corporations and power to the rich.

  5. ItalianSpring, I will make you lose your bet. I want freedom to walk around Arizona without being asked for my birth certificate or my passport, just because of the browness of my skin. I want freedom from the powers of the tyrrany of the monopolistic insurance companies to ruin my life and send me into bankruptcy at their whim, I want freedom from the tyrrany of big corporations and the five big banks that control 76% of our entire economy. The tyrrany of the rich and powerful is what we have been living with the trickle-down ,no regulation economic principles of conservatives, but many in the middle class would blame Obama for trying to correct the sad lot of those of us in the middle class who are losing ground rapidly.

  6. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, I have a suggestion for you. Please read a book written by Mark Levin. The title is Liberty & Tyranny it may just give you a new prospective about what Tryanny is all about and what it will to do America unless its stopped.

  7. the3rdpigshouse says:

    America’s ignorant electorate failed to believe or research the data that was available prior to the 2008 presidential election and voted to put a marxist/socialist in the White House, and now it can’t figure out why the government is growing and centralizing power over every aspect of our lives!! Go Figure!!!

    “OH-Bummer” is an anti-American marxist/socialist – period!!!! Wake up electorate and start voting the socialist democrats out of office in the 2010 congressional election!!

  8. I did read it for amusement. It is a big bunch of hogwash. It starts out with a fairly good recap of our founding history and some of the issues we faced and what the response was. However, it does not discuss the Enlightenment philosophical background of our founding and the meaning of a lot of the terms thrown around like, Natural Law” and others are used in a way the founders never meant. It gives no credence to the emergence of an industrial society and how that changed our country from the ideal that Jefferson and others had that we would remain an isolated agrarian society with plenty of land for everyone and freedom to roam your land at will. In its discussions of modern issues it totally misses the mark. Global warming, for example, is just a theory that the “statists” have seized upon to gain control over everyone in a big-brother way. Our founding fathers believed in observation, the scientific principle and solutions based on facts. Levin shows that he is penning just another polemic that twists everything into one big paranoid fantasy based on willful ignorance. Levin does not attempt to discuss his thesis by making a fundamental argument that proceeds from evidence available for common inspection through a defined line of logic to a scientific view. Instead, he argues from his own perceived moral authority that anyone who has a different view is beneath contempt and their views and the science behind them are fabrications of the tyrranical statists. Paranoid schizophrencis use the same logic he does, but he is a little more erudite than most.

  9. Roncella, Mark Levin? You MUST be joking!

  10. Are you even kidding me? The expansion of the powers of the executive branch went on steroids starting in 2001. Bush expanded the power of the presidency even more than Nixon. GM already paid back its loan from the gov’t, as did the banks. What takeover? What a joke…

  11. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Mal – here you go again with your “Bush derangement syndrome” – open your eyes and confront the marxist/socialist “OH-Bummer” for the huge national mistake that he represents!!!

  12. blakeshouse says:

    Face it… From reading the stupidity of the letters it is a foregone conclusion that there is no united states any longer. It has been transfered into the USSA and the socialist/marxists have turned the constitution into toilet paper. The appologizer in chief may as well be named Hogo Chauvez and the congress be called a politbureau. Mexico OWNS the Southwest now and Hugo jr is doing nothing about it
    It is time to play taps for what was once a great nation. Even if REAL americans can defeat this abhorent regimes starting in Nov the damage caused has been irreperable.

  13. cougar82 says:

    To: blakeshouse & the rest,

    We cannot get anywhere by calling each other Marxist or Nazi or Hugo Chavez. I think the true power brokers on both sides of the argument are invested in our contempt for one another. As long as we blame each other and insist on name-calling, they get to stay in power. They will egg us on to hate each other because then we stay invested in keeping “our” guy in power. The fact is, the whole business, liberal and conservative is hopelessly corrupt and they remain in power by keeping us divided and picking on each other. Bush/Cheney took unprecedented control over our civil rights after 9/11, Obama has sought to nationalize huge portions of private industry. Don’t you get it? They are all laughing at us and hoping we keep hating each other just enough to stay/regain (in) office. We have got to find a way to have civil and honest discourse or all of the dire predictions on both sides will come true.

  14. Darn it 3dpigs house . . . you were right on point until your last paragraph. Drop the Oh-Bummer jazz.. It is President Obama until we can replace him in 2012!

    Some of us blasted President Bush for the same things. We agreed with the liberals pointing out the power grab. Why can’t liberals see the same power grab when the Obama administration does it?

  15. “Over the past year and a half, this transition to centralized power has proceeded as though on steroids”

    Over the last year and a half? Really?
    Talk about revisionist history..

  16. beerBoy says:

    “Over the past year and a half, this transition to centralized power has proceeded as though on steroids”

    The Rip Van Winkle story was true and factual – I present this letter as evidence that people do sleep for over 30 years….

  17. cougar82, please name one single thing that Obama has “sought to nationalize”. If you can, I will change from a moderate to a conservative in an instant. Its a good bet, because absolutely nothing has been nationalized. Do you even know what that means? Private companies are still running the insurance scams they always were, private companies are still in charge of the banks, private companies are still owning all of the auto business. The same five big private banks control 76% of our country’s entire economy. Our investment in the banks did reap a tidy profit, but we didn’t even get a voting member on the boards of the companies we invested in, so there wasn’t even a voice in the policy direction, much less a controlling interest..

  18. Did Obama’s dad sign his birth certificate? If so, what continent were they on at the time?

  19. ItalianSpring, it doesn’t matter where the father is when a child is born. Parents in most states, and in Hawaii specifically do not sign a birth certificate, anyway. State officials sign a birth certificate. The key is where the mother is, unless you have discovered a new way to have babies. A person loses all credibility when they try to fight a state’s official birth certificate. It puts them in the loony “everyone in state government in Hawaii is in on a big plot to create phony documents forty plus years ago so a child born to a single mother can be president” crowd. Yours is an old, very tiresome and just a wee bit paranoid charge that has nothing to do with the topic.

  20. the3rdpigshouse says:

    tuddo – You mean the “private” banks that were coerced/forced by the socialist democrats (e.g. chris & Barney) to lend monies to individuals that could never repay the loans – resulting in the current financial disaster!!!

    Banks were culpible but they did not start the rush to redistribute the wealth – that was your socialist democrats – end of story!!!!

  21. The redistribution of wealth started with reaganomics. We used to have a decent middle class in this country. We used to have a top tier of about 150 large banks. Combined they were about 45% of the US economy. Then reagan came in and Republican Congress after Republican Congres started redistributing the wealth of the USA. Today, the top 5 banks control 76% of the GDP of our country. The middle class has lost out, and there is a huge gap between rich and lower income, with scarcely any middle at all. Rich people think that $250,000 is lower middle class, who can barely make ends meet, while fewer than 10% of the USA ever reach that goal. More Americans make less than the average income than ever before, because the rich have such astronomically high incomes. That is the real story of the redistribution of wealth in the USA, not your paranoid fantasy about big government.

  22. the3rdpigshouse says:

    tuddo – As a result of the socialist democrat party creating the financial disaster of the last two years and the democrats infatuation with the welfare state and socialized everything over the past 40 years – the standard of living in the U.S. is headed down the toilet!!!

    I will giove you that both partys have contributed to the accelleration of the downward trend via the movement of our industrial base overseas. United no longer represents the various elements in our current degenerating society!! More chaos and civil unrest is in the near future!

  23. Let’s see, the stock market crash and the big bank failures started in Spring, 2008, accelerated in the summer and hit big time in the fall. Yes, you are right, but, I remember, it was Bush’s administration during that time and during the previous 8 years that let the banks run wild and the stock market play craps with our future. Your little scenario of some Obama socialist regime suddenly wresting economic collapse from a robust economy doesn’t bear any resemblance to the historical facts. Were you in a coma and just woke up in January, 2009? Oh, no, I forgot, you were on these pages defending everything that your boy Bush and the Republicans did.

  24. beerBoy says:

    Ron – define your use of the term “many” in the sentence “Many of the Czars are not what most of us would consider main stream, they are Communists, Socialists, extreme leftest, some have never held a regular job except for Government assignments.”

    I know of one “czar” (a media term) who had a communist association in the past. Unless there are others you should have used the singular rather than the plural.

  25. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, I may have suggested this to you already but in case I haven’t, you really need to look into some treatment for whats called Bush Derangement Syndrom.

  26. Roncella says:

    beerBoy, What concerns “many” is the number of Czars President Obama keeps appointing. I think the Taxpayers should see what each ones job description is, their pay their background including their qualifications to hold the assignments Obama has given to them.

    This is not a matter of Party, this is information we all have a right to know.

  27. Roncella, the syndrome is actually, “blame Obama for what Bush caused syndrome”. I keep encountering people who think that the bank failures only happened after Obama became president and that our economy was doing wonderfully well until Obama became president, or there were no bailouts or stimulus bills signed by Bush, l and there was no huge deficit until Obama became president. I don’t agree I have what you describe. What I have is an understanding that the entire “reaganomics” theories of the far right have proved to have been a disaster for our country when given a fair chance over the past several decades, and that we need to move to a more centrist economic policy as well as back to a centrist position on the role of our government in the economy.

  28. Roncella, Wikipedia lists 38 positions that the media calls “czars” for Obama and 35 for Bush and has links to the individuals currently in the positions. Most of these positions listed as “czars” are, in actuality, positions like Assistant Secretary of this and that, positions that have been in government for a long time but have been selected to head up certain tasks forces, like Mine safety. Glenn Beck and Fox news just likes to make it seem more dramatic by calling them “czars” Obama has actually created 18 new positions so far. Bush created 35 new positions, with 46 different individuals in the positions over his tenure.

    The information is not secret and is available under Freedom of Information requests, so I am sure there are some details out there on each one. Or you could ask for it yourself. Just identify the position by its real name, because what the media loves to call “czars” has no relationship to reality.

  29. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, President Bush was in office eight years. President Obama has been in office about 1 1/2 years and has appointed more Czars already then did. Many many Americans do not have access to the information you reference or the knowledge to be able to look this all up. Many Americans do not realize that Obama has so many Czars.

    The President should provide this information before he appoints another Czar. He should show their job title and responsibility, their pay, their background and past experiences in the labor market, if they are able to get a Security Clearance.

    Why won’t this information be shared with the America People who are paying the wages of all these Czars ??

  30. alkech says:

    Roncella, of those 35 “czars” of Obama:

    9 were confirmed by the Senate.
    8 were not appointed by the president.
    15 were created by previous administrations.
    Obama has appointed 8 unconfirmed, brand new czars.


    This is by no means a Obama phenomenon kind of like the lady in the Letter to the Editor who thinks Obama was behind TARP and the Auto bailout. Those occured not the year and a half ago but rather by Bush and they are not Government takeovers anymore then Healthcare was. And the idea the Government is taking over the Government student loan program is really hilarious.

    Her whole letter to the editor sounds like Glen Beck-ish spam emai.

  31. Roncella says:

    Alkech, Maybe in your mind this issue of the Czars is not important. You dismiss it and are confortable with Obama appointing more and more Czars.

    I have seen and read your fact check information before. I thought the letter from Senator Bennett and the five other Senators was very serious and informative about the whole issue of appointing Czars.

    I thought Senator Bennetts warning to President Obama that his continuing to appoint Czars is undermining the
    Constitution. This letter was signed by five other senators.

    Once again I say all future Czars appointed by Obama should first be vetted by the Congress. The Czars Title, Job Responsibilities, Pay, Background check should all be available for any taxpayer to review along with the Congress, not buried away in some computer file.

    TaxPayers are paying for these Czars positions they have a right to know why the Czar is needed and a complete check of the Czars background.

  32. beerBoy says:

    So Ron…..you were upset about 47 “czars” appointed by Bush…..right?

  33. Publico says:

    Roncella is running out of gas in this round me thinks. And I am just a sideline observer.
    Does anyone else think the letters thing is a mess?

  34. the3rdpigshouse says:

    bB – check out the other socialist/marxist John Holdren!

  35. the3rdpigshouse says:

    bB – and maybe Anita Dunn! Question – how did any of these get thru the most miniscule review prior to assignments in the “OH-Bummer” regime??! Ever ask yourself that question?

  36. Hey folks, don’t bother trying to debate with Roncella. She never has any facts, only the talking points handed to her and her fellow dittoheads by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. As for the pigshouse, he’s a straight up troll.

  37. Hoodsportwriter says:

    This letter is simply historically inaccurate. The Constitutional Convention was called because the weak Confederation was not working. The Constitution was written to create “a strong central government”. The history (in its original texts) is there for anyone who is interested in the truth. I would imagine from the letter writer’s take on things she does not venture further than Fox Noise and the drugster.

    Have you ever read the “Federalist Papers” – might give it a try….might learn something.

  38. Novelist2 says:

    As per your latest comment, I would say that the only person here I would apply it to…

    Would be you.

  39. It doesn’t matter where a child is born????
    More proof that the LAW means nothing to libs, but only when they run things. Well, I’m off to shred both my birth certificates and my certificate of US citizenship. Thanks tuddo. I’m sure everyone will understand when I tell them that it doesn’t matter where I was born. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

  40. beerBoy says:

    Apparently ItalianSpring doesn’t realize that Hawaii is in the U.S.

  41. Roncella says:

    Mal, Apparently you can’t read and comprehend too well. You should just keep listening to MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, and believe all their bias comments and reporting.

    I believe Senator Bennett knows alot more about the appointing of Czars than you do and he along with some other Senators are very concerned about Obama continuing to appoint more and more Czars.

    BeerBoy, Your right I was not concerned about President Bush appointing Czars, as President Bush never apoligized and bowed to Communist Leaders, Socialists, Dictators around the World.

    President Bush would not enter into talks with Iran until they showed a serious intent to stop their Nuclear ambitions, unlike Obama who said he would enter into talks with Iran on whatever terms they wanted.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0