The drafters of the U.S. Constitution were very familiar with the corruption of power. Extensive debates were held with one of the main concerns involving giving too much power to the Federal government. Too much power is fine in the hands of good men, but is terrible in the hands of evil men. Unfortunately, you can't always guarantee good men come to power. To be safe, the Constitution restricts this power.
One way to restrict this power was to use checks and balances. A consequence of this is that many times it ties the hands of those in power and slows down the process of change. Sometimes this is bad. Usually it is good.
The Obama administration found out the negative consequences of our founding father's design when they tried to bring the White House into the information age.
(See "Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages")
The "most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history" enjoyed the same advantages of modern information technology that many companies, homes, libraries, teenagers, etc. in the U.S. enjoy. Yet, when seated in public office, "Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy".
So the question I have is: if there are so many constraints on our Federal Government, why do they think they are the best ones to solve our problems?
I heard recently that if we eliminated the income tax for all Americans, it would be about the same as all of our bailouts (about $1 trillion). Imagine how that could stimulate the economy! But, instead of leaving the $1 trillion in the hands of working people, let's give it to people that have "a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts".
Music: TMSIDK Episode 16
2 days ago