The only question that matters

Last night the President made his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. Many have been focusing on either what the President said or didn't say in regards to policy prescriptions. Democrats are unhappy in part with the President because they believe his goals were not ambitious enough. Republicans are upset with the President because they saw his address as an unprecedented expansion of Executive authority.

The President essentially told the American people that the only election that matters is the one for the presidency. With statements made by Obama about going around Congress he has essentially nullified the voice of the American people. Congress is that voice. It allows the minority a seat at the federal government table. Obama has essentially decided those people no longer matter because he has granted himself the authority to go around Congress with executive orders. It started with the minimum wage hike for federal contractors and exploded from there in his SOTU speech.

At this point there is only one question that really needs to be answered, where is the limit of executive authority? The President's commitment to a "year of action" sounds good to those who agree with his policies, but to those apposed it sounds like he is shutting down the honest debate this country needs. With this new found attitude, where will he decide to draw the line and say that Congressional approval is necessary? To me it sounds like, if the President deems it necessary for the benefit of the economy he can just sign an executive order.

When the President decides to go around Congress for the sake of helping the people, he is actually doing exactly the opposite because the people elected the Congress! He is enacting his own policies based off his political ideology and desire for power, not based on what the people at large want. This is why Congress is given the authority to craft legislation, they are a more accurate representation of the nation. When one man decides to circumvent that group he becomes a dictator.

Minimum wage is just the beginning

Plastered on just about every news site is the President's determination to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors  to $10.10 per hour. One only needs to go to CNN.com or MSNBC.com to see how this is seen as a courageous act and something that is necessary for the stability of our economy. How great will it be knowing now that janitors can make $2 an hour more than before!! Talk about stimulus! One of the justifications for this increase is to increase morale of low wage workers and to reduce employee turnaround. My question is, why would we want to?

First, by increasing minimum wage laws for government contractors this means more money from the taxpayers. The government needs to pay the contractors expenses which will increase due to wage increases, so the government will need to come up with more money aka taxes. Simple enough.

But it's not just that. If someone is a janitor for some federal contractor, why would you want them to have their morale in that particular position go up? Why would you want to reduce turnaround? The purpose of those jobs, besides the obvious, is that they are starting points for many. Also, wages reflect skill. For janitorial type work, it requires little specialization and skill. Turnaround is healthy for a company. Either the person in that position seeks employment with another company for a higher wage or advances to a higher pay grade in the same company. Maybe they change positions all together. Then, some other low skill worker will come along and fill that vacancy. Turns out voting isn't the only thing you can do with you feet, you can negotiate wages too!

Also, does anyone find it fair that a janitor for a government contractor gets paid more than someone working for a private company not making a living off the feds?

This stunt is to just get the ball rolling for when the President pushes for a minimum wage hike for all workers. He is testing the waters and already many Republicans are saying that Obama must not go around Congress. According to Jay Carney, the White House puppet, “You can be sure that the president fully intends to use his executive authority to use the unique powers of the office to make progress on economic opportunity, to make progress in the areas that he believes are so important to further economic growth and further job creation." Interesting, I don't remember that part in the Constitution.

We need to realize that this new found executive authority is unconstitutional. Once we abandon the framework of checks and balances we lose the constraints on federal power. We need to be willing to stand up to those who break the oath they swore on their inauguration. As long as the President has his supporters and the people don't stand up to him, what's to stop this expansion of authority?

Shocker! Politicians/Governments Abuse Power!!!

Is anyone really surprised when a story breaks about a politician that abuses power? Or how about when a government agency begins targeting various political interest groups? It seems like every few months a politician falls from their position of power.

Chris Christie is the latest politician to fall into scandal. Before him, the mayor from Canada who was smoking crack.Not long ago, IRS targeting, and the state departments negligence in Benghazi and the cover up that followed. If there is one thing to take away from these events it's that people abuse their power and will spin a story to make themselves look innocent.

In the case of Chris Christie, I'm not sure if he did in fact know of the shutdown of the George Washington Bridge, but he might have known. What's amazing is that Democrats defended Hillary Clinton and President Obama in the Benghazi debacle saying that they didn't know and that other people are in place for those types of situations. But when a scandal comes out of a Republican administration the Democrats immediately reject that same defense.

The only thing to take away from all this scandal is that politicians are going to abuse their power. It doesn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians. There is only one way to reduce the  temptation to abuse power, downsize the government. It's precisely because the government, at the state and federal level, is so large that abuse occurs. This isn't to say that there will be no scandals with small government, but it's less likely.

If the state of NJ privatized the roads and gave the authority of them to private companies, Chris Christie's office never would have been able to shut down those lanes. If the IRS didn't have such broad authority and power there wouldn't have been any political targeting. 

As the government grows larger, so does the abuse. At the current rate of government expansion, expect to see many stories like these.