Peter Wants To Rob Paul
Jan 14th, 2010 by Frank Knotts
This morning on local talk radio station WGMD, Delaware State Representative Pete Schwartzkopf was in studio with Dan Gaffney.
Rep. Schwartzkopf came by to discuss expanding the number of casinos in Delaware from the current number of three, to five. Rep. Schwartzkopf was also there to discuss the recent release of the Delaware Gambling Commission’s report on increasing the number of casinos in Delaware. The report is only a recommendation for the state legislature.
To begin with, a majority of the Gambling Commission recommended against increasing the number of casinos in Delaware from three to five. Rep. Schwartzkopf was a member of the commission and was in favor of expansion.
Rep. Schwartzkopf attempted to make the case that Delaware could increase the amount of revenue that is generated by gambling in the state, merely by increasing the number of locations at which people could gamble.First off , are there people standing outside of the current casinos waiting for hours to get in, so they can lose their money to the state ? I don’t think so.
I argue that this is not the case. I argue that there are only so many gambling dollars out there and that no matter how many locations you create , you will not significantly increase the amount of revenue. The commission also seems to believe this , since they stated in their report that the three current locations would see a revenue drop if new locations were approved. Maybe as much as 15%.
Let us look at the gambling dollars out there to be had, and let us think of them as a pie. It doesn’t matter if we cut the pie into three pieces or five pieces, we still have the same amount of pie, just smaller pieces. This brings up another of Rep. Schwartzkopf’s reasons for expansion, he feels that the current owners of the three casinos in Delaware are somehow acting improperly, that acting to protect their profits is somehow wrong of them.
Rep. Schwartzkopf also made his case based on creating new jobs in Delaware. He stated that expansion would create five thousand new jobs. Mr. Schwartzkopf did not say how many of these jobs would be construction jobs and how many would be permanent jobs. He did mention the reports findings that expansion would cause job losses at the current casinos, maybe as many as twenty-two hundred, that means that expansion would really only create a net gain of two thousand eight hundred new jobs. Not bad unless you are one of the twenty-two hundred people who currently have a job, but won’t if expansion is approved.
Rep. Schwartzkopf made the statement that his main concern was the creation of jobs. Well this is exactly what you would expect to hear from a Democrat . Let us face facts here, the labor lobby is in favor of expansion, labor historically has supported Democrats. So when Mr. Schwartzkopf complains of the lobbyist for the current casino owners, I find it disingenuous.
Also, if Mr. Schwartzkopf is only interested in creating jobs, I challenge him to propose legislation that would remove the state of Delaware from the business of collecting a share of the profits from gambling. Not likely since the state is only interested in expanding gambling in an attempt to increase revenue so that those in the state Capital who think as Mr. Schwartzkopf does, can keep on increasing the size and scope of government.
Let us not forget that Rep. Schwartzkopf was out front on bringing sports betting to Delaware, and let us not forget what a fiasco that has been. Now he seems to want to once again take the lead on an issue that is doomed to fail in its proposed goal.
Expanding the number of casinos in Delaware will not increase the amount of dollars spent on gambling, it will not draw more tourist to the state . Often we hear from those on the side of expansion that we must do this to counter act the fact that surrounding states are going to expand their gambling operations. This is akin to the arms race of the cold war. They build a casino, we build two, we add more slots they add more slots. And of course the ace up the sleeve is table gambling, how long before we are told that we must institute table gambling or lose all chances of competing with surrounding states. And just like the arms race during the cold war, the end result is guaranteed mutual destruction.
In my view , gambling has been a losing game for Delaware. Over the years since we started with the lottery and since we instituted slots and now with betting on the NFL, we have constantly been told by Dover that all we need do, to solve all of our budget woes, is to once again add or expand gambling in some form. Now we are told if we just open more casinos, we can once again solve our budget troubles. Don’t you believe it. Even if we expand the number of casinos, the surrounding states will go froward with their plans of expansion also, again slicing the pie into more pieces, but not creating more pie.
Expansion may have some marginal short term effects on employment, but for the most part it is nothing more than a case of moving the profits of one location to that of another, while doing little to increase the revenue of the state.
Frank, let me try to explain this to you.
A. the 5 members didnt vote against the commission because of the findings, they voted against it because,
1.Bill Lee. Patty kee (Ceo of Harrington) lives in Lees district and BIFF OWNS HORSES AND COMPETES AT HARRINGTON
2. Helene Keeley travels extensively with Mary Davis(lobbyist for Dover Downs) all over the world.
3. Nancy Cook has 4 family members that are on the Board of Directors at Harrington. check thier website.
4.Colin Bonini represents north Harrington and surrounding areas.
5. Patty Blevins, also friend of Rickman (owner of Del park in Wilmington). He maxes out to her campaigns, and SHOCKER…..owner of Ocean Downs in Berlin, Md. just 8 to 10 minutes from Selbyville Delaware. I drive it everyday.
This commission was stacked against any expansion for any proposed location from the start.
This is a race to who builds first. DelPointe or Ocean Downs Md. You make the argument thats its not 5000 jobs? maybe not, lets say its half that 2500? isnt still worth putting them to work? What about 1000 jobs? Wouldnt it be nice to put 1000 families back to work?
Please cut and paste a map link so we can see just how close Ocean Pines MD. is to lower Delaware vs. Dover and Harrington.
The numbers you cant change is that the biggest factor is its a 550 MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT IN THE WORST RECESSION IN A CENTURY IN A COUNTY WITH THE HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE STATE!!!
Frank, come on youre smarter than this. this is not the the time to play R’s vs. D’S. Its called putting Sussex back to work.
People in Sussex will not drive 50 min to Harrington or an hour to Dover when they can be to Berlin in 15 to 20 minutes, and then we lose that money that used to be gambled in Delaware to Maryland.
Thanks for letting me ramble
Another point I forgot to make, whats wrong with a private person buying a peice of property and putting a business on it for profit. Isnt it called free market enterprise? Let the strong survive, thats what made America great.
Should Simpson, Thornburgh, Wilson and Walls be allowed to serve on the board at these casinos? The deck is stacked against any expansion. EVER!
Thanks again.
First anon, your point of the commissioners who voted doing so to protect interest within their district is well taken, isn’t that what they are supposed to do ? I don’t believe that people within their districts would be happy if they voted to send jobs and money outside of the district.
We can never stop Maryland from building their casinos, and just because we get ours up first won’t stop people from Delaware from going there.If just building more casinos would solve the problem , then why not three new ones or fifteen ? Why not put slots on the counters of every Wawa and Royal Farms ?
I will admit that part of my trouble with expansion is the fact that we are basing our future on something that even the state recognizes is potentially harmful to the citizens of the state, hence the need to run ads informing people of the potential effects of gambling.But I do believe just like the fiasco of sports betting, gambling is only a short term fix for revenue problems and to continue to expand both the size and types of gambling is an exercise in futility. We continue to explore this avenue which has proven to be a dead end instead of others .
anon you ask about property rights, okay should we allow anyone to build anything anywhere? Bars and porn stores next to schools? Dynamite factory in the middle of downtown Lewes? I guess we could eliminate the zoning boards around the state that way.As for the jobs, yes creating even a thousand jobs is a good thing, but if the end result is just another expansion of a bad idea, then we must weigh the cost.Think of the number of jobs we could create by legalizing prostitution, oh I hope Rep. Schwartzkopf doesn’t see that !
And if you have followed me on this topic , you know I have been against it from the start, it is not a “R” verses a “D” issue in my mind, and I will criticise Republicans as well as Democrats who support expansion. I will also praise Democrats who oppose it. Currently my senator, Joe Booth supports Del Point in Millsboro. I have expressed in the past to him my opinion. If he continues to support expansion it may well play a part in my voting next time around.
Frank, you need to do a little better research. Delaware does have legalized prostitution. It’s called the General Assembly.
If we were to build another Casino in the state of Delaware it would only serve to shift money from one casino to another. So if you build one in Wilmington you take revenue from Delaware Park and move it to Wilmington. It makes ZERO sense. Perhaps THAT is why they voted against it.
Oh darn…there I go using common sense again. Can’t do that wil liberals like Anon around.
Evan, you making my point for me.
you said….”if we build another casino it only shifts money from one casino to another”
does that mean if we DONT build a Sussex casino and Ocean Downs does, wont it take money from Harrington and Dover? that will take money from our coffers and giving it to Maryland?
Heres a question for you Brainiac, how does Dover and Harrington survive just 15 minutes apart?
Frank,
Yes it is a Rep & Senators job to protect thier District and interests, so why shouldnt Schwartzkopf stand up for his county?
The difference is casinos are legal under Delaware law, Prostitution is NOT.
Dynamite factories need federal permits and oversight, not state.
Your dynamite is a stretch…..should we stop all oil tankers going up the Delaware because one of them might explode or dump 10 million barrels of oil in the bay? No we shouldnt.
By the way whats the difference in a dynamite factory in Lewes and the Suburban plant in Millsboro? Which one would cause a bigger explosion?
I love the self-proclaimed “conservatives” strong support for the government-controlled monopolistic regime. And people like Evan have the audacity to call others liberal.
“Rep. Schwartzkopf made the statement that his main concern was the creation of jobs. Well this is exactly what you would expect to hear from a Democrat . Let us face facts here, the labor lobby is in favor of expansion, labor historically has supported Democrats. So when Mr. Schwartzkopf complains of the lobbyist for the current casino owners, I find it disingenuous.”
Only Democrats are for jobs? Really? I’m in favor of all the new jobs we can find. I’m not a Democrat, and if there’s a union enemies list in Delaware, I’m on it. You’ve got to be kidding.
And unions aren’t in favor of new jobs. They’re in favor of new UNION jobs.
Dave,
I’m not sure which “monopolistic regime” you’re discussing but NEWSFLASH…I’m against government controlled gambling (which we currently have in Delaware) as well. I’d learn a little bit more about things going on around here before I started yappin’.
Anon,
Brainiac, people from lower Delaware stop at Harrington instead of going the extra 15 minutes to Dover. That’s a pretty easy case friend. I think 3 casinos in Delaware is probably too much but then again I think the government making those decisions is ridiculous. In fact, if the casino groups had been left to do the work in the capitalist fashion we’d have the casinos where the money is Wilmington, Dover Downs and maybe at the beach. Instead we have them at the race tracks. NOW the casino groups want to add more to the mix in the EXACT locations they originally wanted to put them. Sounds like we wasted a decade or so to just end up in the same place we were headed.
The bottom line is that the pie is going to split no matter what we do because Maryland will find a way to 1 up the Sussex casino and take a piece (perhaps a large one) of the pie. Gambling revenues are NOT a long term solution to the budget problems from a responsible fiscal perspective. I mean do you budget your lottery winnings into your monthly income? Of course you don’t (If you do, please head immediately to http://www.daveramsey.com)!
From a moral perspective, what the hell are we doing as a society PROMOTING something that has been proven to ruin lives, destroy families and create debt? Are we really willing to sell our SOULS for a few bucks in order to keep some failing social program sucking money out of the coffers?
Let’s be clear, the only reason we “need” gambling revenue at the state level is because Delaware is HEMORRHGING money from failing social programs. They SAY it’s for education but the only reason we can’t pay for our education budget is because so much of the money that goes into DEDOE, DELDOT and DNREC (insert government beauracracy here) is wasted. Combine common sense, fiscal responsibility and moral obligation and you see that government should NOT be involved in the casino game. Political greed and the wanton desire for power is what got us into it but there is one more reason why we should turn these casinos back over to the private companies and stay the heck out of it.
The design of our government and economic system is corrupted by government involvement. Capitalism relies on morals, values and a responsible/limited government to work and our Constitution (including the Delaware State Constitution before it was shredded in the last decade or so) calls for a limited government. Try this on for size, if Delaware followed the Constitution as written, they would not have the power to help the casinos aquire land or provide any major incentives to them for doing business here. It would come down to the Casino groups and the citizens to decide where the casinos could be built. No one would be worried that the casino groups would steal their property because the clear cut law of the land as written in the Constitutions of both Delaware and the United States prohibit either government from engaging in emminent domain. Casino groups not desired by the community would find it difficult or impossible to acquire land whereas if the communities accepted the casinos in exchange for the jobs created they would be willing to work with them.
This is BASIC capitalism and democracy at work folks. The problem is that progressives from both parties have desired the power and influence that comes with controlling where the jobs go and where the money goes.
Evan, heres a better idea for ya…. run for public office, you know it all.
Anon – I’d rather not, it seems like every decent person that goes into that business ends up without a SOUL.
With that said, if my family, friends and the people in my community think I should run, I would consider it.
It is absolutely absurd that the state is involved in gambling in the first place. The games are fixed (by the inviolable laws of probability) in favor of the house. And it is well-known that many if not most regular gamblers are low-income residents, those who can least afford to throw their money away. What about that Socialist-Democrat ‘compassion’ for the ‘working man?’
The state goverment is the largest employer in the state…that is the problem.
“The whore and gambler
By the state, licensed
Seals that nations’ fate”….Wm. Blake
Take a clue, Pete.
Rick,
Socialist-Democrat ‘compassion’ for the ‘working man is a lie, just like the idea that Socialist-Democrats are “fighting for minorities to get an even playing field”. They’re not. They’re fighting to increase the Democrat stranglehold on their votes.
“I’d learn a little bit more about things going on around here before I started yappin’. ”
That’s a funny thing to read directed at me, since I’m the one who created this web site. You recent arrival on the scene, combined with your general demeanor, leaves me without the interest to find out what your positions are. However, when you say:
“If we were to build another Casino in the state of Delaware it would only serve to shift money from one casino to another. So if you build one in Wilmington you take revenue from Delaware Park and move it to Wilmington. It makes ZERO sense.”
…you are making the argument for protection of a government monopoly.
No Dave, I’m making the argument that the state shouldn’t be advocating for the building of ANY casinos. Adding more state run casinos does what to stop that government monopoly exactly?…..I’ll wait….
“Adding more state run casinos does what to stop that government monopoly exactly?”
State run?
Dave,
Let’s not kid ourselves here. The casinos are run by the State government. Legislators have all the power over these casinos and with the “Delaware Way” in effect the casino execs are only a hop, skip and a jump fromt he legislature.
Gambling is a part of the Delaware Budget and will continue to be a part of it. It can’t be too big because of other state’s competition and economic considerations. When I ran last year I hoped it might generate $20-30 million which could have been set aside for real education reform.
The state is not clean in this matter at all. Given the performance of the Dems I predict loan sharking will be the next proposal to help balance the budget.
Mike Protack
Dave, i was wondering how long it would be before you clued Evan in, that you statred the site.
“Maryland will find a way to 1 up the Sussex casino…”
Perhaps, but Maryland tends to be even more resistant to gambling than Delaware. It’s more likely that a Maryland casino would be built in Talbot County than anywhere else, aside from Ocean City, but OC is very forceful about preserving its “family” image.
The gambling issue always tends to confuse me, perhaps because I don’t understand why the state government has any say in it in the first place. It seems to me that in a free market, anyone would be able to open a casino, and the state would neither restrict its activities, nor profit from them.
The gambling issue always tends to confuse me, perhaps because I don’t understand why the state government has any say in it in the first place..
Neither does anyone else.
“The design of our government and economic system is corrupted by government involvement. Capitalism relies on morals, values . .”
Is somebody copying stuff from Sarah Palin?
“The gambling issue always tends to confuse me, perhaps because I don’t understand why the state government has any say in it in the first place. It seems to me that in a free market, anyone would be able to open a casino, and the state would neither restrict its activities, nor profit from them.” – Stop Chris…you’re making sense
“The design of our government and economic system is corrupted by government involvement. Capitalism relies on morals, values . .”
Is somebody copying stuff from Sarah Palin?
lol
A.) I don’t think she’s actually SAID that but if she did she really DOES get it
B.) It’s true. If government stayed the hell out of the economy and did ONLY what is was originally intended to do (i.e. stay out of many of the areas government is currently in…energy…transportation…education…health..etc.) we’d be MUCH better off. I know that’s really hard for your progressive mind to comprehend so I’ll assume you will never get it and move on.
Dave, i was wondering how long it would be before you clued Evan in, that you statred the site.
Anon…just because Dave started it doesn’t mean he has a clue what goes on here and it’s quite obvious he was having trouble understanding where I stood on our state run gambling system despite me having iterated this a dozen times. I was just hoping he might bring himself up to speed before he posted more comments that distorted the reality.
Evan, you say:
“If government stayed the hell out of the economy and did ONLY what is was originally intended to do (i.e. stay out of many of the areas government is currently in…energy…transportation…education…health..etc.) we’d be MUCH better off.”
First, we decide what the government does or does not do using the Constitution, the Courts, The Congress, The Executive, all tied together we free elections. So don’t make it sound like you know the way it should be. It is the way it is because we want it that way. We want the “government” Energy Department to have six months oil reserves in the ground. We the people decided we need to do that after OPEC cut us off from oil in the 1970′s during a war.
What proof do you have to support the theory that we would be more prosperous if we followed you ideology? All the evidence tells us exactly the opposite.
Take the past century for example. The greatest expansion of prosperity, wealth, human rights in American History. Private sector and Public sector expanding hand in hand to meet the needs of the people.
I find it kind of ironic that you blindly adhere to the purity of a “theory” that is contradicted by the very facts in front of our eyes. That’s precisely the fatal flaw that doomed the Marxists and will eventually lead to the collapse of the Jihadists, yet you are pretty much approaching politics the same way. It’s your way or the highway. Take a humility pill. There is always the change your theory is not absolute.
“Take the past century for example. The greatest expansion of prosperity, wealth, human rights in American History. Private sector and Public sector expanding hand in hand to meet the needs of the people.”
The 20th century was marked by disasters, foreign and domestic. Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR grossly abused the power of the presidency. Their motives in doing so may have been good, but we are now reaping the unintended consequences. And you are incorrect; the public sector expanded, yes, but the private sector has been steadily shrinking. Another few decades of the policies that guided the past century, and we will be living in a totalitarian state, with every aspect of our lives controlled by the federal government…and all for our own good.
Chris, I know many people share your view, but you really should not be so down on the good old USA. I think you might be wrong about the private sector shrinking.
In 1947 the GDP was less than $2 trillion, now it’s around $13 trillion. Not bad.
The private sector has not been shrinking. Both pubic and private sector have grown immensely. The two go hand in hand. Can’t have one without the other, right?
Since the 1930′s, more wealth, more jobs, more prosperity, more education, more home ownership, more medical progress, more human rights, more of everything has been created than during any other time in American history.
All in full compliance with the Constitution, according to the Founders, as affirmed by our Courts over all these many years.
People tell you this or that is “not the way the Constitution was intended”, but they’re wrong. Why? Because the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution intends. And the current America is a product of that process.
It’s hard to tell what the Constitution intended sometimes. What does the Constitution say about embryonic stem cells or radiation from cell phones? Is there anything in the Constitution about landing on the moon? Would the Founders be for or against full body x-rays for air travel? Government controlled flight paths? Mandatory emergency oxygen supply and mandatory radio location rescue devices in coal mines? Is there anything in the Constitution about a national DNA or fingerprint database?
Anyone who tells they have plans for a small simple government that will return Colonial era liberty to the modern world is just plain full of crap.
The Founders were Practical Men. The Constitution is a Practical Document. It is not intended as a religion. It is not a Bible or Koran. It is from 230 years ago. We evolve. Constitutional law evolves with us. Only God remains the same.
That is how the Founders set it up. That’s the blueprint we have faithfully followed. We can argue till we are blue in the face as to what policy is good or what policy is bad – we can change policies – but to say we are not in tune with the Founders or the Constitution – is just self- righteous babble from people who don’t really like the way the Founders set things up.
What the anti-Government, return to Colonial times crowd is really saying is – that they don’t like what we made out of our freedom. They worship the tree of the Constitution, but just can’t stand the fruit.
Don’t like what the voters voted for, don’t like what the elected officials did, don’t like what the Supreme Court okayed. They don’t like what America is after 230 years. Tough darts.
One guy on this blog is so sure he should rule, he wants a civil war to get rid of the opposition so we can ditch democracy, get rid of the courts and all, and set things up just they way he see things. Claims he knows what real liberty should look like. Not this phony liberty we have. Maybe after his civil war, we can outlaw liberals, decide who gets the vote all over again?
People like that have been around forever. Can’t stand sharing power. Can’t stomach being outvoted in free elections. Think people are so dumb they don’t even know what their voting for. Demagogues promising phony promises – like promising simple government for a complex world. Get the government out of your life. Return to the Founders time.
Our disorganized conglomeration of capitalism, socialism, democracy has done quite well for us. This is the land of the free home of the brave. Not the land of ideological purity.
One of the first things the Founders did was to start building government post offices along with roads to connect them. Put the Government in charge of intellectual property rights, Patents and stuff so inventors could make money. Franklin and the others knew well that a heavy duty forward looking public infrastructure would help private enterprise thrive. That was before socialism or capitalism. Nothing in the Constitution even mentions those words. We have been getting along part socialist part capitalist ever since and doing just fine.
Were would WalMart be without Federal Highways? Or Federal Aviation? Where would Ted Turner, CNN, FOX be without the Government communications satellite program? The public sector is part of the engine powering the private sector.
How the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to control the Global Positioning Satellite Network is hard to figure, but that’s how we do it, and it works great.
Some anti-government folks will say “who the hell gave the Government the power over GPS!! The answer is we did. And we did a very smart thing. Government run GPS is one of the greatest productivity advances ever to bless the private sector.
Not sure what Jefferson or Hamilton would think about the FCC having the power to auction off public airwaves, frequency spectrums to enable wireless for WiFi without interfering with microwave transmissions, but that is what we decided to do and it’s a miracle. All them clickers, iPhone BlackBerry things coexisting with car door openers remote TV controllers – all managed by the Big Government FCC. It must be in the Constitution somewhere. It’s a complicated world.
Even our social safety net is cool. Poverty in America is not nearly as ugly as it is in lesser societies. Who would want to live somewhere surrounded by shanties with raw sewage running in the streets. Our old folks begging for meals, living without heat or medicine. It costs us a fortune to have this kind of society. But what is fortune for?
Don’t let anybody try to fool you into thinking they can make government simple for you.
Chris, GDP was less than $2 trillion 60 years ago, now it $13 trillion. The private sector and the public sector go hand in hand. Can’t have one without the other. Both have grown immensely together for the good of all. Totalitarian is about not being able to elect your government. That will never happen here.
“Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It’s that simple, think123. I don’t think I need to write a two thousand word comment explaining the Tenth Amendment; it stands on its own merit.
1932 Germany was a democracy. Hamas was Democratically elected. Chavez was as well. The reason the Constitution limits the power of government is because the founders recognized that the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. In desperate times, people can make a mistake. That is why the Constitution has circut breakers to prevent a hasty game changing error. It is the reason why our Republic is the oldest in the world.
Chris, Amendment X . . so where does the United States get the Constitutional Authority to establish a network of satellites to enable GPS? Do you disagree that the three branches of government empowered by free elections, all in full compliance with the Constitution is how we arrived at where we are today?
Yes, you gave a short answer, but it does not say much. We can’t Twitter away our future in twenty five words or less . . life is not that as simple as your slogan “get the government out of our lives”. That is the “platform” of the Tea Party, I am simply asking for an explanation of how that can be done. If you can’t explain an “ideology” then it’s just a con game. Make love, not war. Get the Government Off Our Back. All Madison Avenue crap, no real policy meaning.
David, for a patriotic guy I am surprised to read you comparing the United States of America with Nazi Germany, Hamas, or Venezuela. Surely that is not what you meant?
1)What do you think of the United States Government getting involved in that Global Positioning System?
2)Do you think it was wrong to establish NASA to land on the Moon?
3)Do you think it was proper to establish a National Hurricane Center as part of NOAA?
4) From 1957 thru 1961 a drug called Thalidomide caused massive birth defects babies born with missing and deformed extremities. It was the Government Food and Drug Administration that protected us from that and much worse over the years. Is it wrong to have an FDA. It it in the Constitution? Here is a link to Thalidomide victim.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Thalidomide_Baby.jpg
I offer this photo in an attempt to get you out of the ivory tower of your ideology, back into the real world where we need a strong Government to manage many things in a complex world. What you are pushing will hurt people.
Now you may say the FDA is okay, and warning us about hurricanes is okay, and exploring space is okay, and putting up the GPS system is okay, but it’s all the “other stuff” that’s killing our freedom. I am simply asking you to explain yourself, your ideology that Government is somehow our enemy. So far all you have said is look at Germany in 1932?
People tell you this or that is “not the way the Constitution was intended”, but they’re wrong. Why? Because the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution intends. And the current America is a product of that process.…think
Have you ever read Article I., Section 8. of the United States Constitution? Have you ever read the last four paragraphs of Madison’s ‘Federalist #41,’ addressing the peoples’ concerns as to the relationship between the preliminary ‘General Welfare’ clause in Section 8., and the specific powers granted? I didn’t think so.
Madison is generally recognized as the ‘father of the Constitution.’ Has it ever entered your propagandized head that the Supreme Court socialists of the FDR era ruled in an uncontitutional manner by granting Congress the power to do virtually anything under the guise of the ‘General Welfare’ clause, when the true, granted powers are clearly deliniated? How can a jurist presume to interpret ‘intent,’ when the intent is clearly articulated?
Liberal interpretation of Constitutional ‘intent’ is one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on an unsuspecting population. And, it is why we now face a long-term national debt of $15-trillion.
The Founders, obviously, believed in the individual; the leftist-Marxists of the 20th Century believed in collectivism. It is really that simple. Since the Constitution clearly limits the size and scope of government, it is the lifelong duty of leftist academics, ‘journalists,’ jurists and politicians, to destroy it, piece by piece…as a ‘living document,’ of course.
“Stop the Marxist Bastards!!”
Rick, yes I have read that.
You just can’t come to grips with the reality that not everybody agrees with you. Since when did you become judge world scholar final arbiter of what our Constitution means? You must be a genius eh?
It’s your inflated opinion. Nothing more. You want to stop the Bastards that disagree with you. Same as all the other little tyrants running around the world.
Just like the Ku Klux Klan and the Death To America Jihadists, you offer the same intolerance, same dumb shit. No real policy. No answers. Just slogans. Insults.
You didn’t answer the question regarding the three branches, or anything else for that matter.
The Supreme Court decides if law is constitutional, there are of course ways to amend the Constitution. If you are saying we have not been using the Constitution properly, then you are saying you just don’t like the set up the Founders put in place. Are the Courts, The Congress, The President, the voters all wrong and Rich is all right? Sick.
All,
there’s no point arguing with think123 because he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t have the intellectual apptitutde to understand how the Constitution works or what the Founders envisioned. Of course he defends the expanision of the public sector and Presidents like Teddy, Wilson, FDR and LBJ. Why? Because he is a PROGRESSIVE just like they are. Working through his ridiculous posts full of lies or distortions would be more effort than he is worth but anyone who’s read more than one of his posts full of drivel can narrow his progressive ideology down to 3 main points:
1.) Government expanision is necessary.
think123 believes that without an expansion of government over time, technology and an enlightened society out grows the limited government our founders put in place. You see, think123 and his progressive friends believe that the smarter people are, the more prosperous…the more they need to be controlled. The more they need to have a government who can keep them in check. Why? Because think123 doesn’t believe that humans are inherently good, molded after God and thereby capable of self governance as an enlightened people. He believes that only through the FORCE of government control can order and above all FAIRNESS be maintained.
2.) Government expansion is our choice.
think123 is constantly talking about how we are culpable for this expansion and you know what, he’s right. However, he also suggests that this expansion is something the majority of Americans (especially Delawareans) are supportive of. This is where is is wrong. The truth is that the American public has submitted over time to the Progressive agenda but that doesn’t mean we want it.
Teddy roosevelt, perhaps the first GREAT progressive removed many restrictions on government because he, like think123, believed that that it was governments job to control men who had benefitted through the industrial revolution. I won’t go into a rant about Teddy’s quotes, read his New Nationalism Speech for more on his ideas. Instead I will tell you that he expanded the scope of “Executive Orders”, called for UHC, created a Social Security Insurance plan, created the Dept. of Labor, chased “more easy and expeditious” methods of ammending the Constitution (I guess the Founders never thought about how difficult the pesky ammendment process, which requires states to ratify the ammendment, was) and he called for a “graduated tax” (progressive tax) on “disproportionately large incomes and fortunes.
Woodrow Wilson would step in with is “living government” theory and tell us that the founders screwed the pooch. He felt that the founders weren’t enlightened enough to understand the intricacies of todays society. He called for a reinterpretation of the Consitution using the theories of Darwin’s theory of organic life instead of Newton’s theories of physics and the universe. Wilson was intrumental at removing the Constitution from the equation.The theory of a fluid Constitution is essential to the progressive agenda because it allows the government to pick and choose the rights IT gives to people. It’s completely counter to what the Founders believed and wrote about. In the progressive world the rights are “administered” by the government to the people and not the other way around the way the Founders intended. Let’s also not forget that Wilson also imprisoned people who disagreed with the US entering WWI. Later FDR (elected 4 times btw…and upon his death after his 4th election the people enacted a term limits amendment) and LBJ would implement the government programs that would further subjugate the people. Did I mention FDR called for a second bill of rights because the first one wasn’t enough?
What do all of these Presidents have in common? They were all elected in “free and fair elections” (and they were all progressives). Actually there is one more thing they have in common, they all ran on the ideas of hope, change and blame. They all promised the world to the people and if they acted NOW they wouldn’t even have to pay for shipping!
Oh, and I almost forgot, they also all have one more thing in common, every government program they created is currently costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
The truth is that Americans don’t want their Constitution shredded, they don’t want the founders principles violated but they have a problem believing the people running to be elected as people would want to do those things despite the language they use. They elect these men to serve during difficult times because they promise the world without payment due. The progressives PREY on the citizens of America when they are weakest. The voters do however have some culpability. We’ve allowed the progressives to hijack almost everything. They’ve removed God and morality, removed the Constitution as the law of the land and they’ve put us on the path to “social justice”.
3.) It’s all Constitutional and the founders could never have understood today’s complex world.
Well that’s interesting because as I recall the tenth amendment pretty much sums up the governments role in all powers not SPECIFICALLY defined within the Constitution:
“Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Think123 and his progressive friend often point to the Supreme Court as the check to ensure our rights are protected. The fact is that the PEOPLE were always meant to be the keepers of liberty NOT the Supreme Court. The Founders did place checks and balances on the branches of government and they did indeed desire the Supreme Court to be a protector of the peoples rights but not the ONLY one. The Supreme Court was intended to interpret the Constitution as written and it clearly does not do that today. Let me reference Oliver Wendell Homes in 1919 who called outrage over the Court’s ruling that Eugene Debs was in violation of Wilson’s “Sedition Act” by just giving a speech, “alot of jaw about free speech” and also said “If a man thinks that in time of war the right of free speech carries the right to impede by discourse the raising of armies [then he had] better not monkey with the buzzard.” The last time I checked it, the Right to Freedom of Speech (also known as the First Amendment) was pretty darn clear and yet the Supreme Court could even screw that up. The truth is that the people are the final check and we became far too lethargic over time. The recent mass awakening and revival will again show people like think123 that they are in fact an EXTREME minoirity and that their message no longer resonates with the people.
Evan, I have some questions for you at the end here. Your answers might help me understand what you stand for.
A lot of what you say makes sense. I totally agree the PEOPLE are the ultimate power. That’s why I was so happy 60 million of us fought hard and won the big election in 2008. I have been voting since 1964 (Goldwater). 2008 was one of the greatest mass awakening I have witnessed. I guess you are not about to congratulate the winners eh?
Yep, the only way we do things in this country is with the vote, with the Courts, with the Congress, Executive. I repeat ad nauseam – that’s exactly what we have done for hundreds of years. Did it turn out the way you wanted? Maybe not, that is the way it goes.
From what you write I am not sure if you just don’t like the PEOPLE. Don’t kid yourself into believing you are anymore of the PEOPLE than all those other people out there. Or that you love, understand the Constitution any more than us other PEOPLE.
You frame things liberal ,conservative, progressive, through some ideological looking glass. I see things more as incompetent or competent. I am not 100% per cent certain where Social Security fits in the Constitution, but I know it’s legal, it has revolutionize us for the better – it works, it has relieved a tremendous amount of misery for our elders, that counts for a lot. I really don’t care about whose ideology it fits. America is a very practical country.
We kicked out the old government, elected a whole new crowd because the old government took us from a good economy with a balanced budget into a deep crap hole of depression and debt. So now we’re trying to dig ourselves out with something new. It’s not much more complicated than that. I hope these new people are more competent, than the bums that wrecked things. Will it ever be just all roses and perfectly in tune with some Founders dream? No.
From your last post I get the idea that you are saying we should be operating pretty much the way we were during Colonial times. You explain your feelings, your animosity towards what America today is, but you still avoid any real specifics. All I read are very vague generalities about the role of Government. Nothing about real people, real problems, real policy.
There are people who don’t know what’s happening, people who watch things happen, people who make things happen. I want a Government that makes things happen. You sound like a person who wants to watch things happen. Let nature takes it course. Do not create the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, go to the moon? Our hands are tied because we cannot find space exploration in the operating instructions our Colonial founders left us? The Constitution is not Mao’s little Red Book. We are not prisoners to our Colonial past.
Advocating a Government that watches things happen. Do we watch the rivers die? The forests disappear? Do we watch a polio epidemic overcome our children? Do we watch child labor? Do we watch predatory lenders rob our citizens? States cannot solve national problems. That is why our motto is In Union There Is Strength. That is why every other word our Founders uttered was about Union. A perfect Union. You preach the cult of the individual. The primacy of me over we. That is wrong for America. We are a nation of we.
Can you apply your theories to this real world we live in today? Simple questions not to be answered with patriotic slogans or Teddy Roosevelt quotes:
1) Do you think it wrong that the United States Government runs a network of satellites that control Global Positioning devices? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
2) Do you think it is wrong that the United States drug makers must get the approval of the United State government to sell a drug? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
3) Do you think it is wrong that the United States Government controls air traffic in the United State? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
4) Do you think it is wrong that the United States Government maintains a national criminal DNA fingerprint database? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
5) Do you think it is wrong that the United States Government control how much lead can be in a toy?
WOW!!! Thanks to everyone who has commented on this post. I have been working a lot of ours lately and missed what seems to have been a great discussion. Evan Q, thanks for understanding my original point. You guys were having a good back and forth about expanding gambling in Delaware. And then think123 showed up and did what he and all liberals do when they have nothing to add, they mis-direct . They get you to go off in some inflated argument that has nothing to do with expansion of gambling.
Frank, it was not a “liberal” who misdirected – it was stuff like this way before I chimed in.
“The design of our government and economic system is corrupted by government involvement. Socialist-Democrat ‘compassion’ for the ‘working man is a lie, just like the idea that Socialist-Democrats are “fighting for minorities to get an even playing field”. They’re not. They’re fighting to increase the Democrat stranglehold on their votes.”
Can you guys tell the truth about anything?
Rick, yes I have read that.…think
Then rather than attack me, why not address the points I brought-up? If you’ve read the clearly expressed powers granted Congress in Art. I., Section 8., and if you’ve really read Madison’s ‘Federalist #41,’ then explain how 20th Century jurists are right, as to ‘intent,’ and the actual words of Madison are wrong.
You can’t do it, because you are intellectually lazy; it’s much easier for people of your ilk to resort to childish name-calling and fraudulent psychobabble.
Rick, here’s the explanation. Twentieth century jurists are right because they are the jurists and we are not. Why do you need all the judges all the courts all that goes into deciding law? Because it is as clear as a bell? No. It has to be interpreted, otherwise we could do it with computers, you sound as though you do not understand why the Supreme Court is there. If you want to decide these things, you will have to get yourself on the Court.
Speaking of lazy, how come you always talk about the theory of stuff, but can’t get down to the nitty gritty real world. I ask again:
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted the power to create NASA and go to the moon?
Twentieth century jurists are right because they are the jurists and we are not..
You sound like Humpty-Dumpty..’words mean what I say they mean.’
I ask again:
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted the power to create NASA and go to the moon?
It isn’t. According to Madison, the proper procedure for granting a new power to Congress would be through the Amendment Process; adding an program or agency to the list of specific powers delineated in Sec. 8. Let’s not forget Jefferson’s prohibition concerning ‘light and transient causes.’ This is why the Amendment process is difficuly; there must be a general consensus (as I believe there would be for a space program, regulation of the airwaves, etc.).
You said that jurists have the right to ignore Madison because ‘they are jurists and we are not.’ Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Your nose-ring suits you.
p.s.
Congratulations Senator Brown…This is only The Beginning!!
A lot of what you say makes sense. I totally agree the PEOPLE are the ultimate power. That’s why I was so happy 60 million of us fought hard and won the big election in 2008. I have been voting since 1964 (Goldwater). 2008 was one of the greatest mass awakening I have witnessed. I guess you are not about to congratulate the winners eh?
Not when I so fundamentally disagree with the policies of the person elected and certainly not when he was elected based on false promises. This isn’t a friendly game of baseball where we can play again next year. This is progressivism vs. the founders. It’s IMO Good (founders/democratic REPUBLIC) vs. Evil (progressive/socialist/marxist) and the fate of our nation and my children’s future rests upon the decisions our leaders make. Progressives like you have made politics a game but it was never intended to be such. Our founders knew the decisions they made would have CONSEQUENCES on real people. They knew that because they were real people and I dare say today’s politicians are by and large nothing more than power drunk elitists without a care for the little guy.
Or that you love, understand the Constitution any more than us other PEOPLE.
It’s quite clear I understand it far more than you and your progressive friends.
I am not 100% per cent certain where Social Security fits in the Constitution,
because it’s NOT in there, in fact, in more than one place within the Constitution it mentions that any powers not SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED (that means it would tell you EXACTLY what the power is) are reserved to the people, or the states. SO…If the founders intended the federal government to provide Social Security (i.e. retirment benefits) I would think they would have written that in there. Certainly people retired in the days of the founders…or do you believe they all worked until they died?
but I know it’s legal, it has revolutionize us for the better – it works, it has relieved a tremendous amount of misery for our elders, that counts for a lot. I really don’t care about whose ideology it fits. America is a very practical country.
You don’t KNOW it’s legal but you WANT it to be legal because YOU believe it works. Have you seen what it’s COSTING us? I mean let’s look at it this way:
You could give away $10 a day, everyday to a homless person on a particular corner near your home or work. Maybe that works for a while, perhaps he starts bringing a friend after a few months and you give them both $10 a day and then another friend tags along and you’re giving $30 a day. And so on…and so on… You’re still getting paid from work but you’re eventually giving it all away and next thing you know you max our your credit cards, sell your home, your car and in the end where do you find yourself? On that same corner looking for the guy you used to be to hand you $10. Sound ridiculous? That’s what we’ve done to ourselves with Social Security. Our CURRENT unfunded liabilities to Social Security at $107 Trillion dollars. The truth is that Social Security from its INCEPTION was nothing more than a carbon copy of Madoff’s scheme. It was designed to take money from young people with the promise that they too would recieve the benefits at age 65 when the government knew all the time that the life expectancy in America was far BELOW 65.
Will it ever be just all roses and perfectly in tune with some Founders dream? No.
Thanks to Teddy, Wilso, FDR and LBJ we have a lot of work to do to reverse the entitlement mentality in America but it COULD be perfectly in tune with the Founders dream if progressives like you stopped trying to destroy that dream. You see, everything was going along fine until you progressives, pushing your socialism started forcing your way in and corrupting the government, shredding the Constitution and creating “case law” and hijacking the educational system to teach the children to be good little progressive entitlement babies.
From your last post I get the idea that you are saying we should be operating pretty much the way we were during Colonial times. You explain your feelings, your animosity towards what America today is, but you still avoid any real specifics. All I read are very vague generalities about the role of Government. Nothing about real people, real problems, real policy.
Then you haven’t read most of what I write. I’m constantly advocating for what we should be doing in any given situation. However, progressives like yourself have trouble reading anything that doesn’t conform to your progressive utopia top down style government.
There are people who don’t know what’s happening, people who watch things happen, people who make things happen. I want a Government that makes things happen. You sound like a person who wants to watch things happen. Let nature takes it course. Do not create the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, go to the moon? Our hands are tied because we cannot find space exploration in the operating instructions our Colonial founders left us? The Constitution is not Mao’s little Red Book. We are not prisoners to our Colonial past.
But we are bound by the law written in it. NASA was born out of national defense and arguably it should probably be a private agency but neither here nor there, I’ve never suggested we don’t innovate. What I’ve said, and I think I’ve been pretty clear on this, is that there are limits to what the federal government can do. It CANNOT overstep those limits lest it become a tyrannical element. The states themselves should be doing much of what the federal government is doing today because THAT is where the real power is supposed to lie. With the states and the people.
Advocating a Government that watches things happen. Do we watch the rivers die? The forests disappear? Do we watch a polio epidemic overcome our children? Do we watch child labor? Do we watch predatory lenders rob our citizens? States cannot solve national problems. That is why our motto is In Union There Is Strength. That is why every other word our Founders uttered was about Union. A perfect Union. You preach the cult of the individual. The primacy of me over we. That is wrong for America. We are a nation of we.
LOL> Geez Woodrow..slow down with the marxism please? States can’t regulate their own labors and eliminate child labor? States can’t save their own rivers or forests? Please. This is big government at it’s worst. Our motto, by the way is “In God we trust” and before that it was unnoffically “E pluribus unum” which is Latin for “Out of many one”. It was meant to symbolize that all of the individuals in America could come together through the states and form a union of basic protections for our basic liberties. You say individualism is wrong for America, I say it’s what founded us. The idea that we are all created equal but separate. We all start with the most basic rights and are allowed to be whatever it is we want to be without restriction.
Can you apply your theories to this real world we live in today? Simple questions not to be answered with patriotic slogans or Teddy Roosevelt quotes: God Forbid that.
1) Do you think it wrong that the United States Government runs a network of satellites that control Global Positioning devices? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
That is part of “providing for the common defense” of America in the technology age.
2) Do you think it is wrong that the United States drug makers must get the approval of the United State government to sell a drug? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
Slightly trickier here. I’d prefer this to be done mostly at the state level. I think the federal government ought to issue patents to drug makers to protect their initial investments but the individual states should reserve the right to allow or deny certain drugs to be sold within the borders of their state. The same goes for insurance. With that said, the federal government ought to allow the portability of drugs and insurance across state lines.
3) Do you think it is wrong that the United States Government controls air traffic in the United State(s)? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
Common Defense/General welfare allows the government to regulate air traffic control- can’t very well have airplanes running around bumping into one another can we? ATC is akin to traffic lights. It’s a necessary tool of technology. With that said, the federal government doesn’t necessarily have to actually RUN the business. In fact, it would be a much smarter use of the public money for the states to outsource ATC and TSA to private agencies and for the government to provide oversight. If the states feel like they should consolidate that authority within the Federal Government fine, we have an Amendment process. It’s not just for changing who votes and how, it’s for any change in federal power.
I mean hey…if they can just provide “oversight” to the Federal Reserve who only CONTROLS OUR CURRENCY…certainly they can do the same for air traffic control right?
4) Do you think it is wrong that the United States Government maintains a national criminal DNA fingerprint database? Where did the Founders provide for that in the Constitution?
I’m in favor of state governments sharing information about their criminals but this ought to be left to the states. If the states decide to share their information then they should be able to do so. I do not believe the federal government has the capacity to make them do so. If enough states find it critical to share the information through the federal government they can present an Amendment to the Constitution that would accomodate that.
We have a civilian police force within the states that was created out of the common necessity for security. We decided as a society to LOAN our rights to a group of people we hired SPECIFICALLY to protect us from damage done to our rights. The states have a procedure for loaning those rights to the government, it’s called a Constitutional Amendment. We the People have a way to take it back, called a Constitutional Amendment (see Prohibition and the Repeal of Prohibition for more on this subject)
5) Do you think it is wrong that the United States Government control how much lead can be in a toy?
I’m not sure it’s wrong but perhaps misguided. Again, if we’re going to allow the government regulate or control these things through an agency we need to do so through the Amendment process unless it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I don’t have a Masters degree…but I have read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers (YES ALL OF THEM!) a few time all cover to cover and I’m not seeing the part where it says the government can control the amount of lead in a toy. With that said, if this is something that the states feel the federal government should control, we have an Amendment process.
You may have noticed that recurring theme which I’m sure think123 will equate to a “patriotic slogan” but in reality that theme is the only way that our federal government’s repsonibilities ought to be altered. That’s why the process was created. Because the states must reach an agreement to expand the federal governments powers. It was never about political parties and ideologies. It was about the STATES being able to dictate the lengths to which the federal government may go. We’ve lost that state identity. We’re a UNION of states. Of many states..one nation…under God.