Citizenship, Economy, Free Society

Immigration — protection or protectionism

(c) 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

If you are committed to populist and progressive myths about protecting jobs through immigration laws you do not need to read further. If, like my wife, you believe that the United States government has “inherent” powers to control immigration, I recommend reading Solburg, Winton L, ed., The Constitutional Convention and the Formation of the Union, second edition.

Let’s start with the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, defines the powers of Congress. Paragraph 4 says, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This deals with uniformity of laws and deals with the issue of naturalization, not immigration.

The only paragraph that mentions migration is Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1 which reads, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This was a reference to the slave trade and the migration of indentured servants. It expired in 1808 and the slave trade was abolished. This was a compromise to keep Georgia and South Carolina in the Compact—George Mason proposed immediate elimination of the slave trade and elimination of slavery by 1800. In no way does this paragraph provide for regulation of voluntary immigration.

Article XIV of Amendment begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

So the Constitution does not give a whole lot of guidance. And the early laws did not deal with immigration. Even John Adams, the founding godfather of the progressive movement, did not get Congress to restrict immigration from France in 1898, but rather to require an extended residency period for naturalization.

During the 1840s a number of nativist groups emerged and advocated controlling immigration and deporting aliens. In the late 1860s it turned out that the aliens—specifically Irish and Chinese turned out to be necessary to the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. Abraham Lincoln and Grenville Dodge had ignored the War Department’s surveys and drawn a line on a map. To execute the Western third of that line required disciplined workers who could be careful with explosives and reliable. These were the Chinese, whom the Anglo-Californians were trying to get rid of.

In 1875 that the first limitation on immigration was passed (the Page Act). Employers were prohibited from importation of “coolie labor” and Chinese sex workers. In 1882 came the Chinese Exclusion Act. It should be noted that both the 1875 and 1882 Acts violated the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which was renegotiated in 1880.

The current quota based immigration system dates back only to 1921—more than 130 years after ratification of the Constitution. The latest intrusion is the REAL ID Act, a federal mandate on state issuance of identification justified by the so-called “war on terror.”

The progressive movement (and this includes the neo-conservatives and populists currently posing as conservatives) believes in government expansion by crisis. The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 was not the ultimate attack on the United States. The REAL ID Act was an advance of central control, nothing more nor less.

The anti-immigration movement (including such national figures as Tom Tancredo and Kris Kobach) is nothing more than economic protectionism dressed up as patriotism—see Dr Johnson’s Dictionary. It is not conservative any more than was the Know Nothing party before the conflict of 1861. Economic protectionism, as many know, was the cause of the 1931 recession that was rebranded the Great Depression for political purposes. Ultimately, immigration has generally been positive although the folks who came in through Ellis Island and were socialized in the New York public schools and their descendants have contributed to the dependency culture—we need some hard-working Mexicans to change this.

 

Standard
Citizenship

A case for a change

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

There are two major candidates, one of whom will be elected in December, with different aspirations. Mitt Romney wants very much to be President. To that end he will promise anything he needs to promise and will have a tough time following through on those promises if elected. This is not intended as an endorsement of Mr Romney.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is President. He made all those promises four years ago, and to achieve some he ignored others. He wants very much to transform America. It worked for FDR—four times. It was only after World War II ended and Truman lifted wartime restrictions that the nation began to recover from the recession of 1931.

So let us look at the transformation so far. The “bailout” of the auto industry involved a takeover of two companies in order to preserve the union welfare state of those companies and give the government a “stakeholder” place in decision making. The bankruptcy law was violated and preferred stockholders, many of them public employee and teacher pension funds, were left holding the bag to assure government preferred stakeholders—aka the UAW. When franchises were closed, the fact that some had paid serious money for their franchises was not a consideration. Apparently volume of sales was not either.

Another aspect of the transformation of the auto industry is the new green technology. An example of this is the new Chevy Volt. GM loses $49,000 on every one that leaves the factory in order to reach a price point of $40,000. In addition the taxpayers pick up another $7,500 in a tax credit to bring the price down to a level where people will buy the vehicle.

The genius of the American auto industry has been its ability to produce vehicles that capture the consumer. And scuttle those that do not. They did not have to deal with the fiat that “you will build this vehicle” mentality of the Combloc. The Edsel was a failure—Ford ditched it and followed with the Mustang. Despite Ralph Nader the Corvair was extremely popular—there is a 61 driving around town that is in better shape than Ralph.

Ford escaped the “bailout” by having shepherded its resources to where it would not have to take a reorganization. Not to worry. New EPA CAFE standards took care of the the popular Crown Victoria. The company will survive, but a solid, powerful vehicle has been removed from production. Its replacement, the AWD Taurus-SHO, is unlikely to last as many miles and has a higher price tag to begin with. And with Executive Order 13603 in place, Obama has “authority” to seize industries in the name of national security.

The “bank bailout” saved some companies that should have been allowed a quiet demise. The real estate bubble which brought it down was caused largely by federal requirements to “open up” the housing market. To avoid pressure by compliance agencies, the banks loosened credit requirements to the point that massive groups of people were approved for loans they could never pay. There were people in certain counties in Colorado who were refinancing every eighteen months. There was a joke in the consumer community about using Visa to pay Mastercard—eventually the house of cards (so to speak) tumbles.

As the Congress set about remedying the financial situations there were companies that should have gone under, but were “too big to fail” so they were propped up. The regulations bill that the President signed had not been read by its sponsors. Retiring Sen Chris Dodd said it would take a couple years to find out what was in it.

So we come to the quick fix comprehensive health care reform. Like the financial services bill it was rushed and rammed through without time for reading or reflection. So much for the promise of transparency. What is in it—other than a tax that is unlawful because it originated in the Senate or else in the mind of an intimidated Chief Justice—is not clear. What is not in it is: cost control, frivolous lawsuit control, and cost increase control. Without these, the temporary nature of the bill is apparent—the costs will crash the government.

Then we come to the assertion that the President has authority to order the assassination of anyone he deems a threat to the American people. In asserting this power—which was not asserted in the Divine Right of Kings—the President places himself with banana republic dictators as well as Vlad the Impaler, Caligula, Stalin and Rasputin.

The President has also issued executive orders giving himself authority Congress and the Constitution will not. He tires of waiting for Congress. He has always, from his own statements, been frustrated by the Constitution’s negative liberties. He would like to change this Constitution out for one that mandates redistribution. And he clearly is looking for three more appointments to the Supreme Court in order to achieve this.

Mr Obama recently remarked that is is nearly impossible to effect change from the inside. Perhaps the community organizer needs to get back outside.

Standard
Free Society

After November–or Now

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl – Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

This is titled After November What?! The problem is that after the election lethargy sets in and everyone starts talking like the fan who calls into sportstalk radio after the BCS championship game to state that no wimpy SEC team that never played in Lincoln can call itself the National Champion. Everyone who has ever listened to sports talk radio understands this point. And there are thousands of fans that realize that bad calls happen and there is nothing that can take them back. They quietly wonder about next year and realize that there are five or six seniors for whom there will be no next year.

So every election night is like Super Sunday to the faithful—it just drags on like a game between two teams that have decent defense and no offense. And that is what makes it a spectator sport. Every election night, the losing side talks big about the next election. And a few make good on threats to move out of (city, county, state, country). And there will be a few for whom there will be no next time.

The reality of 2012 is that there are two major party candidates who are not defenders of the Republic. Romney does not understand and Obama is openly hostile. They believe in a system where they divide the spoils and they increase the influence of their respective parties. And they have a public that demands entitlements—yes, subsidies on agriculture, protective tariffs, and bailouts are all entitlements.

So I was writing this to talk about after November. What is going to happen? The party pros are going to be working on the next election, it’s the people who will be overjoyed or distraught. The pros are talking about marketing. What message needs to get out to win the election? How do they sideline the nuisances like Paul or Kucinich?

People are not going to be involved until they are needed—the strategy is to formulate the program and get people involved when there is work to be done. This is not a strategy—it is a habit. The establishment goes into sleep mode for three years, then expects to energize like Popeye slamming a spinach flavored AMP and take on the big boys.

Let’s look at it. The Democrats have been at this since Andrew Jackson lost the Presidency in the House of Representatives in 1824. Did he make a concession speech and go into Ostrich mode until September of 1828? No. He got off his duff and formed alliances. He wrote letters and met with leaders including Martin Van Buren who had organized Tammany Hall. 1828 was the year John Quincy Adams and the National Republicans went down in defeat. The main goals of Democrats are winning elections and governing. Since 1913 they have espoused a cogent progressive stance, and while out of power they still actively push their philosophy and agenda with a major consistency and do not sleep. In other words, campaign mode never ceases. And while they have been out of the White House more than in it since 1950 they have kept Congress with few exceptions.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have been in business since 1858 and, despite a run from 1861 to 1909 with two breaks for Grover Cleveland and one for Andrew Johnson, have been the minority party. If you look at American history, it is a hodge podge of defunct political parties—Federalist, National Republican, Populist, Progressive. The Republican Party may follow suit. The reason is that the Republicans eschew full-time politicians as a necessary evil. So the dilettante of the season with the program of the season is nominated—and surprise, it’s the nominee that the establishment wants except when there is a massive movement like Goldwater.

So how does the Liberty Movement take over a party. First, whether Obama or Romney wins in November the Republican establishment can best be described as moribund. It can hang on for one or two more elections, but it is looking back to the glory of Reagan without a sense of what Reagan was about. The Reagan years were not a significant dint in the march of Progressivism. What youth wants is a march to Freedom. And if they cannot get it, they will not put up with the Party.

FORGET NOVEMBER, START NOW.

I am of two minds on Romney. He is a dilettante who has a feeling of entitlement because his father was denied the nomination. His idea of foreign policy is the PAX AMERICANA. He supports the policies of Bush and Obama regarding “the war on terror.” His campaign has resorted to dirty politics for the purpose of making the Convention in Tampa a coronation that will lead to the conquest of Obama. The only reasons I can cast a vote for Romney are: 1) He would appoint some fairly vanilla justices to the Supreme Court whereas without a Republican majority in the Senate and even then a lot of them roll with “history.” 2) He would wake up a substantial segment of the anti-war movement that sleeps while “the chosen one” occupies the house at the juncture of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues.

Remember that our goal is not putting Romney in the White House. He would continue on the path to implosion at a slightly smaller pace—it is even likely that he will serve only one term, leaving Obama out there plotting to pull a Grover Cleveland. The more likely scenario is that a popular Democratic Governor will emerge. Both parties look for the (con)man on the white horse. Our goal instead is to advance the cause of the liberty movement, to bring down the Imperial Presidency and to restore the Republic with its limits on power and its individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

There is the alternative of a “third” party which has been defined as any party not Republican or Democrat. American history is littered with third parties. The key is to capture the Party without getting sucked in. This means going precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. It is better done outside of an election year, but you need to start where you are. Remember, the socialists never sleep, the establishment never sleeps. Unless we can take back the Republic we might as well sleep through it and line up for goodies.

THE REPUBLIC IS WHY REPUBLICANS EXIST.

This will not be an easy battle. No political battle is. But what is the alternative?

  • The alternative is an evergrowing government surrendering the sovereignty of the American people to the a world government under the United Nations. And it has been politicians who have given over the sovereignty that is not theirs to give.
  • The alternative is a copy of an East Bloc “Peoples Democracy” where your papers are being asked for.
  • The alternative is a national police force where the crimes are interpretations of vague concepts.
  • The alternative is an isolated Presidency, unfettered by the law and advised by commissars.
  • The alternative is an education system where the learning and literature of the past is thrown in the fire.
  • The alternative is the next generation (yet unborn) will have no knowledge of our history.
  • The alternative is a catastrophic failure of all the systems of government with no clue what to do other than beg from the Chinese.

Do we want these alternatives. Or do we want to spread the word, work for the future. Socialists believe in the inevitablity of their cause, that the end of history is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long ago they abandoned the withering of the state—Marx was a crackpot; it was Lenin and Stalin who determined the course of history.

Are we ready to say no to that dialectic? Are we ready to say “YES” to the struggle for Liberty.

Standard
Uncategorized

Social Security Commentary

(c) Earl L. Haehl  Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

I suppose every blogger has some opinion of the Social Security issue. And while every politician who can move his or her lips has spoken out, the question remains as to whether a permanent fix is appropriat for what in 1935 was a quick fix to lower the unemployment rate in time for the 1936 election.

Disclaimer: I am a Social Security recipient.  That was optional but I calculated out that any way I go I will be 82 1/2 when I will have gotten back the funds confiscated from my employers and myself in my name.  Added to this is the fact that the dollars confiscated in 1975 are paid back in 2010 dollars.  And with all due respect to those who have said this is an insurance plan I say, “No!”  Social Security was designed to supplement pensions so employees would have an incentive to leave the workforce.  A true insurance plan would have fiduciary responsibilities unknown in government programs.

I began working when Dwight David Eisenhower was President and was paid under the table.  I can say this because all of the employers who so paid me have long ago passed into the realm that is beyond the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.  The culture back then was to avoid this.  Lyndon Baines Johnson was President when I first had the deduction.

Every so often a politician announces that something has to be done about Social Security and it has to be a permanent solution not a quick fix.  The resulting solution is a bipartisan plan that buys a few more years so “we” will have time to work out a permanent solution.  It is interesting that politicians use the the term “we” to mean someone who will have to deal with the problem somewhere down the line.  But the root of the problem is never addressed.

It’s easy (and often accurate) to blame the Prussians.  John Taylor Gatto points out that Horace Mann was heavily influenced by the Prussian system of public education.  Bean counters admire Prussian record keeping,  The use of statistics in government program development comes from the formation of Germany in 1870.  The hours of close order drill to which I was subjected from age 16 to 19 was the result of Benjamin Franklin recruiting an out of work Prussian staff officer to devise a method of drill for the Continental Army.  And from use of statistics Bismarck determined that 65 was an optimum age for members of the German Army to retire.

Back in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt was trying to redesign the mode of production in the United States to combat an economic “crisis” resulting from government and government authorized actions.  In 1929, the Federal Reserve tightened the money supply because the economy was a little too “hot.”  This resulted in the Stock Market crash of 1929.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was vetoed by President Hoover–I give him credit for this–but it was passed over his veto.  US Industry was at full production until April of 1931 according to Merrill Rukeyser.  He viewed Smoot-Hawley as the proximate cause of the recession that began in 1931 and was nursed along by FDR until it was handed to Harry Truman.

Which brings us to the New Deal.  What FDR promised was a set of temporary laws that would restore the country.  Frances Perkins, graduate of Mt Holyoke College and Columbia University was the Secretary of Labor.  In 1935 she chaired the group that brought forth the Social Security Act.  Remember back in 1870 that Bismarck’s plan for retirement arrived by statistics at age 65.  It was a rare retired soldier that would live beyond 67 or 68 (a significant portion did not make it to 65) which made the retirement age sustainable (well, statistically sustainable).  Age 65 retirement made sense in the new deal because it had a precedent–it did not have the statistical analysis that said that workers were not as effective at that age or that their longevity was ideal to this.  The other factor that was probably more important was that this would give the older worker an incentive to leave the workplace so that “family men” could have jobs.

Like the other alphabet programs the SSA would disappear at the end of the emergency, which in this case, turned out to be 1946.  However, all of the New Deal legislation remained in effect and was enlarged upon.  In 1965, Medicare was added to the Social Security entitlement.  There have been various adjustments in retirement age.  Only individuals ages 16 through 64 are considered to be in the Civilian Workforce.  This is comparable to the withering of the state after the dictatorship of the proletariat.  While Social Security did not demand retirement at any age, social pressure was applied to those who kept “family men” out of the workforce–this is the way authoritarian regimes keep power by demonizing those who do not get with the program,

Unintended consequences:  Every piece of social legislation has unintended consequences which keep lawyers and activists in business.  While taking social security is not necessary, in a society where there were “family men” out of work, there was a certain opprobrium attached to older workers staying on jobs.  In a manufacturing setting it used to be the older skilled workers would train the newbies–65 retirement eliminated that.  AVTS and junior college are not a substitute.  When I worked at the ladder company I was taught by the foreman even though I had shop training in school and knew everything.

And the “jobs are for family men” meme sort of evolved into a bias against older workers. That had to be rectified by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  And it is still a perception that when you’re 60 or so it is over.  Except that there is an expectation that “older workers” make excellent greeters but not necessarily sales associates in the sporting goods section.  You will find retirees in small hardware stores, but not the big box outfits.

Meanwhile, if you are between age  40 through 70 and so inclined, you may tie an employer up with an EEOC investigation to determine whether or not there are reasonable grounds for you to sue that employer–no worries; the taxpayers pick up your tab whether or not EEOC finds anything and you have achieved a terrific inconvenience for your employer. The costs of the inconvenience will be passed on to the employer’s customers who pay the taxes to fund federal regulatory agencies.  And if that employer is a manufacturer, the cost of mounting regulatory inconveniences can help make product less competitive in the marketplace.

Standard
Uncategorized

A quick trip from Locke and Smith to Keynes and Krugman

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

This is part of a manifesto I was writing before I realized I’m too old to lead a social movement.

A free society depends, not upon its political class, but on a general understanding of its principles by the majority.  These principles do not reflect entitlements or “goodies” but rather opportunity and duty.

Along with the so called Tea Party, I believe we need to cut the power in Washington and the power to Washington.  We are engaged in a domestic battle which so far involves attempted government takeovers of health care, banking, education and industry.  There is also an attempted takeover of our Constitution which has been going on since 1901 with the repeal of the Militia Act of 1792.  Since 1968 there has been an increased attempt to federalize and militarize law enforcement.  But this goes back to the Benjamin Harrison/Grover Cleveland era and anti-trust legislation.
Progressives love the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton. What they ignore is the agenda of Hamilton and Madison in the commerce clause itself. What Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wanted in the Commerce Clause was elimination of barriers to trade among the States–to be specific the states having power to restrict, whether by tariff or prohibition or unreasonable regulation, the lawful movement of goods from one location to another.  The example was that New York could not grant a preferred status to goods from New Jersey as opposed to Connecticut or Delaware by means of tariff and excise.  It had nothing to do with Federal Regulation of hours of work, wages or other terms and conditions of employment.  It had nothing to do with the regulation of sales of firearms or ammunition to individuals, with a federal scheme of licensing and regulating dealers, with regulation of medical equipment, with federal regulation of pharmaceuticals and the food supply.
If we go back to the areas for takeover, we can examine each.  We must realize that much of the industrial and banking infrastructure predates the progressive movement which some trace to Thomas Woodrow Wilson’s essay on the transcendent constitution.  It even predates Lincoln and the Transcontinental Railroad, as well as the Land Management Act.
Hamilton believed in the free flow of commerce to the extent that he supported the Democratic Republican/Clintonian candidate, Morgan Lewis, over the Democratic Republican/Federalist candidate, Aaron Burr.  Burr was of the Federalist faction like Hamilton, but had allied himself with the secessionist faction within the faction.  Hamilton realized that the dream of free commerce would be destroyed by a breakup of the Union and therefore he supported the successor of his old political enemy George Clinton.  There was bad blood between Hamilton and Burr regarding their banking rivalries–Burr’s family had incorporated the Manhattan company to provide water to Manhattan, but had also gotten authorization to issue notes.  They were on opposite sides of the National Bank debate.
Hamilton also believed in the excise power of the government.  He was influential in getting Congress to pass the gallonage tax on production of whiskey in 1791.  This was a cause of the 1794 Whiskey Insurrection.  In his papers he claims credit for inciting the rebellion because he felt it would demonstrate the inadequacy of reliance on militias rather than a national army.  The performance of Governor Lee and the combined militia force supplied by Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut disproved this on a small scale.  The excise power has been the subject of much mischief over the years as well as the commerce clause.
While this seems a digression, the study of history cannot be complete without the dots to connect unless you have a coloring book where the colors show up when you brush water on the sheet.  Much of the history taught in schools follows this latter pattern with the dyes drawn into the paper by leftist interpreters. The national bank proposal of Hamilton, for example, was only the first of many resulting in the Federal Reserve in 1913.  Hamilton, while a financial player, would probably not recognize the Creature from Jekyll Island.  Nor for that matter would Nicholas Biddle, David Crockett, William Henry Harrison or other 19th Century Whigs.
So let us start with the regulation of banking, Wall Street, mortgages, credit cards, etc. Back in the seventies and eighties (the 1980s–I’m not that old) there was a crisis in agricultural property foreclosures.  The banks were generally willing to work with the farmers but FmHA wanted to clean the books.  As usual Congress acted with the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act to help farmers delinquent on mortgages through the Farm Credit Service.
The fact is that a lot of farmers lost their land anyway.  An exception is that German anabaptist farmers (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, Hutterites) did not have delinquencies or foreclosures because they avoided major debt.  They were able to purchase some foreclosed land which temporarily caused some resentment among the “English.”  This is an example of the banks following social mandates in lending and then having negative consequences for which they are blamed.  The primary culprits in the recent “mortgage meltdown” are the quasi-governmental twins (Freddie and Fannie) and the “affordable housing movement” which had the effect of putting people into properties they could not afford.
A friend of mine, the late John R Kuefel, observed that the whole federal loan program of student, home and business loans has the result of placing large numbers of individuals in a state of villeinage.  Villeins were indebted individuals whose freedom was limited by those holding the debts.  They were outside of society and considered to be of a criminal class, hence the term “villain.”  As an experiment try getting an exit visa or visa waiver to leave the United States if you are delinquent on a student loan.  For an example of the impact of villeinage on a society, read up on the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.
Back in the eighties the Kansas Legislature passed a law requiring that the state pension fund make investments to increase local business development in Kansas.  Mainly they were looking a urban based development that was having trouble getting funding in the private market.  A number were also associates of the governor and legislators sponsoring the program.  The executive secretary of the pension fund recommended strongly against the legislation because it would compromise the fiduciary integrity of the system.  When, as usual, this turned out badly, the executive secretary took the fall.  A law professor with an impeccable reputation as a judge and cabinet officer (for the governor who supported and signed the bill) was appointed to investigate.  Charges were brought against some businessmen for defrauding the fund.  No culpability was assigned to either the governor or legislators who promoted the bill that opened the system up to the scam.
Pension funds took a hit in 2009 when the Obama Administration interjected itself into the bankruptcy proceedings of General Motors and Chrysler with proposals that benefited the United Auto Workers union to the detriment of stockholders.  The new beneficiaries are the “stakeholders” preferred by the regulating power.  Among the preferred stockholders who got left out were pension funds that are heavy investors.  There is a movement to nationalize all private and state pension funds.
Stock brokers began to be regulated after the “crash” of 1929 when the Federal Reserve, without a signal from the economy jacked up interest rates.  There was a panic on Wall Street and some of the reverberations came from the turning bones of Alexander Hamilton in the church yard at Broad and Wall.  The “crash” however did not start the Great Depression other than being about 17 months prior to the recession of 1931, the proximate cause of which was Smoot-Hawley tariff act.   As the recession was beginning to abate, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office with a plan that involved Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins and National Recovery Administrator Hugh S. Jackson.  Their approach to the ills of the country was a massive set of federal agencies and regulations based on The Corporate State by Benito Mussolini.  The Commerce Clause ceased to be about the free flow of goods and services, and more about federal power to intervene in the employer-employee relationship.    This view of the Commerce Clause is best epitomized by William O. Douglas and William J. Brennan.  Brennan expanded his view of the Commerce Clause to include state and local governmental activities as “commerce.”
The twentieth century was all about War.  In 1898, the United States Congress, at the behest of William Randolph Hearst and Assistant (read Acting) Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, declared war on Spain.  Roosevelt involved himself in the Cuba campaign which also doubled as the beginning of his campaign for Governor of New York.  McKinley was not in favor of a war but Congress declared it and at least he had Roosevelt out of his cabinet.  Roosevelt was planning to run for reelection for governor but the powers that be decided he could do less damage as vice president.  Unfortunately for the establishment, McKinley was assassinated and TR became a reality to be dealt with.  He continued the occupation of the Philippines, created the general staff, and sent the Great White Fleet around the world.  He was prepared to use the Marines to protect Panama’s “independence” to build a canal across the isthmus.  Out of the malaria that plagued the workers came the Public Health Service.  “I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate about me.”
While there was a four year lag in the “progressive” movement under William Howard Taft. Then in 1913 Thomas Woodrow Wilson came into office largely as a result of the “Bull Moose” campaign of TR that took electoral votes and made Taft the second incumbent in history to come in third.  Wilson soon had the Federal Reserve act, the ratification of the income tax, the ratification of direct election of Senators, and troops in Mexico.
The sixteenth amendment says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” This basically gives the government the means to expand without raising tariffs and to engage in military adventurism,  The Wilson administration was responsible for the occupation of Mexico, our involvement in World War I, and the 1920 invasion of the Soviet Union to interfere with the Bolshevik revolution.  Also on the plate were the Sedition Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Bureau (modeled after the Soviet Cheka) to break up socialist and anarchist gatherings.
The post war economic downturn was due to loss of about 40 percent of the industrial work force between the “Great War” and the Camp Funston flu.  The first outbreak of the 1918 flu was at Camp Funston, Kansas.  What the government did about this downturn was, in a word, nothing.  The recession ran its course and by 1925, America was back at full production.  Admiral Yamamoto who took his master’s degree at Harvard warned Japan that America would ultimately triumph because of industrial might.
But after eight years of limited government in the twenties, the United States turned to Herbert Hoover, a Rooseveltian progressive.  Since that time the power struggle has basically been between styles of progressivism.  Kennedy and Reagan were Rooseveltian progressives (TR) with some conservative and occasional libertarian tendencies.  But it has been a steady movement of more alphabet soup agencies and restrrictions for the good of the people.   Remember castor oil?  It was part of every grandmother’s medicine chest and it was derived from the toxic castor bean,
So that is how we get from John Locke and Adam Smith to the disciples of John Maynard Keynes, J.K. Galbraith and Paul Krugman.
Standard