The Federal Debt Limit Compromise; Part II

Positive government is where, for instance, you claim a perceived grievance involving your job. A bureaucrat will investigate with no expense to you. The company hires a lawyer and passes expenses onto its consumers. The bureaucrat’s decently paid and has medical and dental insurance while working in a nice building. Taxpayers, of course, pay for the government's end of everything. Positive government is expensive.

Negative government is where, for instance, you perceive a grievance at work and you sue with your expenses coming out of your own pocket while the companies expenses come out of its pocket. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. Tough luck. In negative government too the courts and laws are fair and open to all. The loser pays court costs. It’s cheap. It's also Constitutional and it's historical. But there were exceptions. In the past, local governments paid churches to take care of the indigent. There was also the poor house and the old folk's home and Relief ( today welfare) as it was called.

The federal government wasn't involved. I agree, but with the computer for efficiency and our country's great wealth, it's now possible to have a social safety net at the federal level if we use negative government to prioritize unconstitutional government so we can get our financial nest in order. Because Constitutional or not we can’t undo all that’s been done without nationwide rioting and indigent old people, children and pregnant women literally starving in the streets for all the charitable institutions which handled social problems in the past were destroyed by socialism.

This solution would also help to end the philosophy of a living breathing Constitution, which has broken our Republic, and it would establish a framework. A Constitution should be like a good oak structure. It’s strong, durable and works because the wood’s cared for. And notice the wood’s also dead, not given to arbitrary change.

How would it work. Well, for instance, Social Security even if unconstitutional is negative government. Everyone who turns a certain age receives it. There's no means test, and everyone pays into it.

The Department of Transportation whether negative or positive is constitutional government. You have to have someone day to day controlling the skies. Besides, do you really want the passenger plane behind you with rockets under its wings shooting at you because your pilot wants to use its run way?

The Department of Labor is unconstitutional and positive government. We can’t afford it, not if it means hyperinflation or deep cuts in Social Security. And I like unions. Every uncle I have was in one. One was even a local chapter president. Besides, labor unions and workers are protected by labor laws which means labor disputes can be handled by courts. I know, all the gains workers have made were gained by unions. Exactly. They weren't made by the Department of Labor. Besides do you understand that it’s departments like the Department of Labor that drive businesses overseas. And you can’t unionize an unemployment check.

It’s time for commonsense. Businesses can accept unions but they can't accept the arbitrary power that positive government gives unions for unaffordable frivolous investigations which wouldn't be launched if the unions had to pay for them under a negative government. A cost taxpayers pay which multiplied across the government cost us our credit.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Let me know in the comments.

By