President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 4 years, around 40 percent of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just four short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of left-leaning presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican.

Today the national debt stands at $16.6 trillion, more than a 60 percent increase in so short a time. If the congress complies with the President’s demands for increased spending, the national debt will exceed $18 trillion by next year.

What’s the problem, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds.

The federal budget is up to $3.8 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 3 years ago. Those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer is to raise taxes. We challenge the left to demonstrate to the public when raising taxes has ever improved the economy. In fact, it has never happened. It is when taxes are slashed that money is freed up and businesses invest in new jobs, putting people to work and heating up the economy. President Kennedy proved this, as did Ronald Reagan.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked nearly $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

Publius

As the propaganda press stirs up the occupying proletariat in our nation, and our streets become filled with couch potatoes demanding their fair share of that which has been earned by others, the insanity and impossibility of the scene serves as ample proof that too much weed indeed dulls the human brain’s ability to reason.

The 99 percent demand that they be supported by the 1 percent. They demand that taxation be applied “fairly.”

Indeed, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%.

In fact, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Publius

Under the British system, a system where the king could do no wrong, and all subjects were essentially his private property, indentured servitude and slavery were common. It is how many young people escaped the class poverty of Europe, by indenturing themselves until the age of 18, or later, then receiving their freedom. Others were indentured to repay family debt. Many of these became successful free citizens under the system, while many never escaped the bonds of servitude. Europeans had developed quite a system of slave trading before the foundations of America, and under the British Empire slaves were tasked with working the vast agricultural holdings of the colonies, including those in the New World.

Most of the founders were very hostile to the system of servitude, and although they existed within it, they sought to extinguish it. When the founders declared our liberty from Great Britain, they did so with the intent of retaining the new nation’s faith and credit. Huge holdings were offered as guarantee of repayment of war loans, including vast agricultural empires, which included the slaves that worked them. The slavery question was hotly debated in the forming nation, and it is the one failing of the founders that they were unable to win the day against slavery—due mainly to the collateralization of debt issue—but could only “kick the can down the road,” as our current government does daily.

The intent of the founders was to phase out slavery, but agricultural interests in the southern states resisted all attempts. Finally, the Republican Party was formed and at the peril of national civil war, its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, ran on the platform that slavery must finally be abolished. Over a half million Americans lost their lives in the ensuing conflict, but the issue was officially, if not finally settled. In fact, hundreds of Republican whites and blacks were murdered in the South even after the Civil War, during “Reconstruction.”

Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to enforce voting and civil rights to the descendants of African slaves emancipated during the Civil War, but they were blocked by the Democrats and Southern state “Dixiecrats,” who blocked passage while they blocked black students from entering Southern universities. Who were these Democrats who filibustered and voted against civil rights and voting rights for blacks? John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Lyndon B. Johnson, George Wallace, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, otherwise known as the Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, to name a few.

It was when “progressives” adopted the charlatan policy that they “adopted” African Americans and other “minorities” as their charges. In the name of the oppressed, the disenfranchised and the downtrodden, most of whom were that way because of the old prejudices of the Southern Democrats or have become that way through the taxation and confiscatory policies of the expanded left leaning US government, “progressives” have created a fatherless and helpless nation of minorities in America. Once all left leaning politicians received the Memo that all things were possible in the name of the downtrodden, those very politicians who had so vehemently opposed voting and civil rights for American minorities suddenly became their “champions.”

The Republican voting and civil rights bills were immediately redubbed Democratic legislation, and were passed, with several new powers being given to the federal government in the deal.  The “Great Society” was born and American blacks instantly went from struggling to get into the middle class to dropping directly into the abyss.  American minorities are well on their way to becoming completely dependent on government handouts, and feel beholden to politicians who keep them on the public dole.

Does every American liberal or moderate set out with these leftist results as their goal? No. They are fooled by their leadership, who have their own secret agenda, as recently lamented by Bob Beckel, Liberal Commentator:

“We liberals made a terrible mistake, going back 30 years ago.  We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing.  We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments, and all that bred dependence.”

African-Americans would do well to return their support to those who have their collective well-being and personal liberty at heart.

Publius

We observed a brief exchange in social media between a liberal and conservative, based on a quote posted by the liberal: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The implication is the same always proffered by the left–that government wastes its revenues on defense spending at the expense of social programs, and should reduce spending on defense and increase spending on social programs.

The argument, on its surface, is one that causes the good-hearted to stop and reflect. Certainly, we all want to assist those in dire circumstances, and as a society we have made a social pact to protect those who have fallen from a secure position in life. We seek to lift up the weak, and to champion the oppressed.

But is it true that we spend more on defense than on social uplift?

As we look at the question, we must first ask ourselves, what is the role of government? For instance, is it the duty of the San Francisco city government to provide aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean? We all know it is not. But why is it not? Because different levels of government have different duties to their citizens. With all levels of government working together to provide for the needs of their citizens, so the theory goes, all needs are covered.

So, starting at the top, what is the duty of the federal government to its citizens? The constitution mandates that the federal government be delegated certain duties by the states and their citizens, duties, like national military defense, that cannot be provided by state or local governments very well. Those duties, and powers to fulfill them, are limited by the constitution. These limited powers enable it to provide for the common defense, free the flow of commerce, coin money, establish weights and measures, provide for immigration, bankruptcies, postal services, patents and copyrights, declare wars, establish a Navy and Army, and to establish duties, imposts and excises to pay for the national government’s activities. That’s it.

So if the federal government has no constitutional delegation to provide schools, hospitals or firefighters, how do we get those? We get them from state and local governments. In fact, at the state and local level we find almost all “social uplift” programs. Do states, counties and cities have to provide social uplift programs? No. Do they choose to? Yes.

So how much money do all levels of government spend each year to pay for all levels of government and the services they provide? Here is what we will be spending in the next year:

Federal Gross Spending $3.8 trillion
Intergovernmental $-0.7 trillion
State Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Spending $1.7 trillion
Total Spending $6.4 trillion

Armed with this information we can now make some simple comparisons. For instance–How much is the defense budget? It is $830 billion, or $0.83 trillion. As anyone can see, defense is only 14% of total spending. But how does defense spending stack up to educational spending? In this same time frame we will spend approximately the same amount on each (see our article of June 11, 2012, NEA Report Card: F).

So if America spends around 14% of its annual taxes on defense, and a like amount on education, where does the remaining 72% go? It goes to healthcare ($1.1 trillion), welfare ($0.8 trillion), public employee pensions ($1.1 trillion), etc.

Those on the left have created a myth of government spending that they share among themselves that says that most taxes go to defense spending (which actually pays for the employment of millions of Americans), and social programs get the leftover crumbs. In fact, it is not true at all–it is quite the opposite.

All of those $ trillions are up for grabs to an array of government employee unions, special interests, and administration cronies and contributors, and are funding all manner of social and anti-social programs and movements. This is why Mitt Romney, noting that the federal government borrows 40% of its budget every year (to be paid by a future generation), indicated in the first presidential debate that government spending must be pared back to essentials until the economy returns to full employment.

With all of those fingers in the $6.4 trillion pie (which does not include unfunded obligations), it may be a little difficult for statesmen to serve the American people without offending a few hogs at the trough.

PUBLIUS

Reprinted from Foxnews.com, March 06, 2013.

A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

The response noted that the administration had already told Congress that the APHIS would “eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry” without additional funds.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tim Griffin said the administration’s response to Brown’s email shows a bid to undermine efforts to replace the cuts, known as sequester, with less onerous ones.

“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the sequester cuts for political gain,” Griffin said in a statement.

Griffin told Fox News on Wednesday that the bosses effectively said “you can’t do anything that is inconsistent with the negative impact that we’ve told everybody these cuts are going to have.”

Under the 2011 deal reached by Obama and Congress, the cuts are supposed to be across the board, meaning government officials have limited flexibility in moving around money.

The administration in recent weeks has made doomsday predictions about the impact of the cuts. And the White House so far has appeared unwilling to accept a Republican offer to give the president more autonomy in making the cuts, covering $85 billion this fiscal year, to help reduce the impact on some of the most essential or hardest-hit programs or agencies.

Some political strategists say the president hopes the cuts hurt enough to compel Republican lawmakers seeking re-election next year to end them by agreeing to more tax increases.

On Sunday, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, suggested Republicans would indeed make this decision.

“Our hope is, as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown e-mail.

Vilsack said he was unaware of the email but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.

“I wouldn’t say that we’ve said no to flexibility,” Vilsack said. “But there are certain circumstances where we don’t have flexibility.”

“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that has been put forward,” Noem said.

Reprinted March 03, 2013 from FoxNews.com

The White House is retreating from its doomsday predictions about the impact of the $85 billion in federal spending cuts as they enter a second week — with Republican leaders appearing at least satisfied about delivering on their promise to limit government spending and hold down taxes.

Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, repeatedly said Sunday the cuts will not hurt as much on “Day One” as they will over the long haul.

“Nobody ever suggested that this … was going to have all its impact in the first few days,” he told “NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a slow grind.”

His remarks are in contrast to weeks of President Obama and his Cabinet warning that the cuts will result in furloughs or pay cuts for middle-class wage-earners such as teachers, Capitol Hill janitors and air traffic controllers, which they said could cause 90-minute delays at major U.S. airports.

Sperling declined at least twice to directly answer questions about whether the worst-case-scenario rhetoric has hurt the president’s credibility on the issue. He instead stuck to his argument that independent economists forecast the cuts will result in 750,000 fewer jobs and that corporate executives now anticipate slower economic growth.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN’s “State of the Union” Americans absorbed similar cuts once already this year.

“This modest reduction of 2.4 percent in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average American experienced just two months ago, when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Congress agreed to the cuts, known as sequester, in 2011 after failing to agree on more measure reductions — to defense and some domestic spending. However, the cuts were intended to be so drastic that Democrats and Republicans would be forced to compromise before they started.

Still, Sperling rejected several Republican-backed plans and said no compromise would be reached unless the party agrees to tax increases.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., responded by saying Congress agreed to such increases in January “at the president’s request” and questioned why Obama and other Democrats will not agree to additional spending cuts.

She argued for potential pay freezes for federal employees and reforms to the federal food stamps program.

“There’s a whole host of ideas to cut spending” without jeopardizing security, Ayotte said on ABC’s “This Week.”

However, she also said she would consider tax reform that comes with entitlement reforms. But she would not agree to revenue increases to pay for additional government spending.

Earlier on the show, Sperling said Republican strategy is flawed because the cuts will take resources from several of the party’s most valued positions — including national defense and border security.

“This is not a win for Republicans,” Sperling said. “This cuts into military preparedness.”

He hinted Sunday at Democrats’ likely strategy for retaking the House in 2014.

“Our hope is as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Sperling also dismissed a plan backed by at least some Republicans to give the president some flexibility in the cuts.

“It’s like saying you have to cut off three of your fingers but you can choose which ones,” he said.

Sperling also addressed an email sent to Bob Woodward in which he said The Washington Post reporter might “regret” writing a story that said Obama has “moved the goal posts” on sequester.

He told ABC that he and Woodward share a mutual respect and he hopes they can “put this behind us.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that any tax increases were unacceptable.

“I’m not going to do any more small deals,” he said. “I’m not going to raise taxes to fix sequestration. We don’t need to raise taxes to fund the government.”

All of this comes ahead of a new, March 27 deadline that could spell a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling clash coming in May.

House Speaker John Boehner said his chamber would move this week to pass a measure to keep government open through Sept. 30.

McConnell said a government shutdown was unlikely to come from his side of Capitol Hill. The White House said it would dodge the shutdown and roll back the cuts, which hit domestic and defense spending in equal share.

Sperling said the White House is committed to trying to find a way that Republicans and Democrats can reach a compromise.

The billions in cuts apply to the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30. But without a deal they will continue slashing government spending by about $1 trillion more over a 10-year period.

His comments continued what has become a running dispute between Woodward, perhaps the country’s best-known print journalist, and the Democratic White House over who is responsible for the across-the-board cuts scheduled to begin on Friday.

Last week, Woodward published an opinion piece in the Washington Post – where he is an associate editor – saying the administration was “wrong” to blame the cuts on Republicans.

That drew retorts from White House press secretary Jay Carney, who in posts on Twitter and later in comments to reporters blamed the budget stalemate on Republican opposition to including increased revenues in any deal to replace the cuts.

The $85 billion across-the-board budget cuts were mandated by Congress and the White House as part of the August 2011 deal to avoid a government default. The reductions are split between defense spending and domestic programs.

Woodward, who first gained fame in the 1970s from exposing the Watergate scandal during the administration of President Richard Nixon, wrote a detailed account in his 2012 book, “The Price of Politics,” of the August 2011 deal that led to the cuts.

On Wednesday he attacked Obama for drawing national security into the budget debate.

“So we now have the president going out (saying) ‘Because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.’ That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time,” Woodward told MSNBC on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Obama warned of threats to Navy readiness in a visit to the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard in Virginia, where maintenance to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has been delayed by the budget crisis.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon said it was delaying deployment of another carrier, the USS Harry Truman, to the Middle East because of funding.

Obama’s decision to drag the military into the budget fight likely would not have happened in previous administrations, Republican or Democratic, Woodward added on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Fred Barbash and Eric Beech)

It made the Senate more democratic — and that’s not good.

By Charles C.W. Cooke, Reprinted from National Review Online

In our grubby, unhelpful political lexicon, certain words exist solely to end conversations. The most prominent such word is “racist.” Less popular, but by no means less potent, are “democracy” and “rights.” When welded together as “democratic rights,” the pair becomes all-powerful — strong enough to send grown men spinning for the exits and to render eloquent speakers mute.

For a good example of this principle in motion, witness the orthodox reaction to anyone who calls for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. (Direct election of senators, if you’re wondering.) Removing this ugly violation from the Constitution it so corrupts is an idea that has long lingered on the fringe (there’s another of those conversation-terminating words) and, until the massive expansion of federal power that marked the past decade and woke up the sleeping libertarians, it seemed destined to remain there in perpetuity. Even now, to declare in public that you think the whole of 1913 was one long, ghastly mistake is to be looked at as if you have just announced that the United States should consider restoring the British monarchy.

Providing what may be the Platonic ideal of such dismissals, Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald reacted to the renewed interest by declaring in 2012 that, because any increase of democracy was “unquestionably positive,” any modifications were tantamount to “doing away with rights.” America, “we’re told from a young age, is all about democracy,” Seitz-Wald wrote, “and democracy is all about choosing whom you want to be your representative and holding them accountable.” This, he added, “seems like an entirely uncontroversial idea.” I cannot account for Mr. Seitz-Wald’s grasp of America’s history, beyond saying that if he has indeed been told “from a young age” that America is “all about democracy,” then he must be forgiven for believing it. Still, whatever his schools might have told him, the United States is not in fact a democracy but a constitutional republic, and her virtues lie as much in her undemocratic institutions as in her ample provisions for self-rule — more, perhaps.

Doubt it? Look around. Despite the violence that the 17th Amendment did to it, the Senate remains a partially anti-democratic institution; the Supreme Court is an entirely undemocratic institution; the Constitution is undemocratic, too, requiring for any changes to its structure the consent of a supermajority and containing the Bill of Rights, which is as elevated and explicitly counter-majoritarian a component of national law as you will find. The strong American protections of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, due process, privacy, and the right to a jury trial are triumphs of minority rights. How about the absence of a state church? Not for nothing did Patrick Henry cry ardently for “liberty or death.” It is liberty, not democracy, that is America’s highest ideal.

Walter Lippmann famously observed that, at some point in their history, “the American people came to believe that their Constitution was a democratic instrument, and treated it as such.” The New York Times’ David Firestone appears to be one of these American people, arguing as he did in 2010 that “a modern appreciation of democracy” makes the idea of directly electing senators “so obvious” that any proposal of change is “unthinkable.” Putting to one side for now the narrow procedural majoritarianism inherent in his definition, Firestone’s thesis runs into two problems: America is not “modern” and it is not a “democracy.” Perish the thought.

Instead, the American system was deliberately designed to balance power between the various branches of government and to guarantee individual rights against majority rule, thus protecting the people from tyranny whether they liked it or not. The United States government was arranged in this way as a permanent bulwark against federal encroachment. “Changing times” was no more a strong justification for the undoing of this system in 1913 than it is now. And whatever the Wilson-era progressives might have held, the federal government was not intended to be a wholly separated layer of government. Instead, it was to be intertwined with the states to such an extent that it could not ride roughshod over their interests without pushback. As James Madison resolved during the debate over the Bill of Rights:

The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.

It is exactly here that America’s democracy fetishists go wrong. As Madison makes clear in the Federalist Papers, in order to defend the vertical checks and balances that allow America’s federal system to function, senators would be “elected absolutely and exclusively by state legislatures.” The Senate was not intended to be the people’s representative body, but that of the states. Lest the federal government “swallow up the state legislatures,” George Mason insisted to his fellow convention delegates in Philadelphia, “let the state legislatures appoint the Senate.” The delegates backed him unanimously.

It makes no more sense to argue that to return to this original arrangement would be to “take away” the “rights” of the people than it does to maintain that not being able to vote directly for Supreme Court justices violates their democracy. Everything has its place, and indulging popular sovereignty is simply not what the Senate was designed to do. One could sometimes be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but the states are not regional departments of the federal government. To ensure that they had a working mechanism by which to resist the expansion of federal power, the architects of our Constitution hard-wired the state legislatures into its structure; with the 17th Amendment, progressives pulled out that wiring like punch-drunk Jacobins.

Has there ever been a time when America was more in need of the states’ being represented in Washington? “The People” have their representatives in the House. The nation has its leader in the White House. What of the states? Andrew Napolitano has it right: The 17th Amendment, he gripes, “effectively just gave us another house like the House of Representatives . . . and the states lost their place at the federal table.” This is problematic because, to their great discredit, The People seem not greatly to care how power is structured. Who then is surprised that the abolition of the Senate as the supporting wall of federalism has led inexorably to, as Jefferson warned just before his death, “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things,” being “drawn to Washington as the center of all power”? Returning the selection of senators to state legislatures would help to focus citizens’ eyes locally, where they belong.

“Democracy” may be the cry now. But as Alex Seitz-Wald goes on to acknowledge in his dissent, the primary argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that it might serve to cut out corruption. Money was said to be rife in politics; direct elections would stamp it out. Lobbying by big business was staining the republic; direct elections would cut the buggers off at the knee. The small constituency that a senator served effectively gave him tenure; an amendment would make the body competitive. Bad behavior among senators was rife; the rigors of direct election would make them moral. And how are things now that the scalpel has been taken to Madison’s handiwork? There is more money in politics than ever before; direct elections have served only to cut out the middleman between lobbyists and politicians; senators rarely lose their seats; and Ted Kennedy killed a woman and got away with it.

In a brilliant Humanitas essay from 1996, C. H. Hoebeke rendered this judgment:

In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic.

Americans purchased this dismal failure at the cost of their federal system’s integrity. Like the other two Progressive Era amendments that sit either side, the 17th is a testament to hubris — a parchment admonition of those who would tinker with the permanent in the name of the temporary. Nonetheless, it benefits those who would be required to amend it, which, alas, is a recipe for eternal life in Washington. Repeal is thus almost certainly a dead end; interest in such things is limited. And so the federal titan lumbers on, the states shrinking inexorably in stature. One cheer for democracy, Mr. Wilson.

— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.