Vail Daily letter: Answering critic
Vail, CO, Colorado
When I write a letter about the workings of government, I simply cannot escape from being labeled a “fear monger,””hypocrite” or “hateful person” (e.g., Moffet et al).
Moffet faults me on my recollection of “facts” regarding the process of legislating such bills as TARP, health care and the executive order amending it to expunge the abortion provision.
It is a fact that TARP was the product of a small cadre of staff members associated with the House and Senate leadership. The point I endeavored to make was that the TARP “product” was crafted and drafted by non-elected officials and then foisted upon a naive and trusting Congress by the leadership. Likewise, the much-touted health care bill was crafted and drafted by unnamed staff members.
I am faulted for my observations of the legion of “czars” who have recently been appointed to take control and caretake for us – all without the vetting of Congress or prior investigation by the IRS. This certainly could have saved Mr. Obama a bit of chagrin or embarrassment – sweetheart paybacks and closed-door promises to keep apparently trumped competency, qualifications and tax honesty. This I would call cronyism, Chicago style.
Merely because Mr. Bush may have been complicit in the same activity does not sanction or justify it in the present regime.
Finally, Moffet favors a rule of law based upon “current realities, laden with the law of unintended consequences … ” over strict constitutional law (“constitutional purity,” as he put it). I really don’t know what he means because there is no published legislation on the “law of unintended consequences.” I do know what the Constitution says because it has been published, enacted and construed for more than 200 years.
Not to be too constitutionally pure, but for a law to be valid and enforceable, prior notice of its proscriptions or provisions must be published. Otherwise, ignorance of its strictures would be a defense against enforcement.
I enjoy Moffet’s retorts, and I do benefit from his slant on the issues because it reinforces the purity of my Constitution, both physically and under the law.
Venting one’s frustrations about a “far right” or a “far left” is also good for Moffet’s health. And in all of this, dissent is good.