All I can do is post and allow you to decide for yourself; is it a plea for shrinking government or a demand for more power ala the Enabling Act. ***See footnote at the end for more on the Enabling Act.
This morning some of you heard the speech given by Obama in which he claimed to want to “shrink” government and make it easier for businesses to do business. He outlined plans , very sketchy however, on how he plans to do such. Combining agencies may seem a good idea on the surface but one must take deeper look at what agencies are involved and how their roles would change under Obama’s new “streamline” plan for government. Will he take small agencies which are doing a good job and place them under a large bureaucratic umbrella that will severely limit or destroy the actual mission of the small agency?
Of course much of this is nothing more than “campaign rhetoric” hoping to move him away from the label as a big government liberal. Sounds good on paper and on props but what is his real plan?
He asked for the same power that was given to Roosevelt during the depression and of course we understand today that Roosevelt overused his powers and created much of the mess we have today with a large government being “umbrella” under the scope of a leaner more manageable government. His claim that it continued until 1984 under Reagan when those powers were removed b y a Democrat controlled House in order to freeze the Republican controlled Senate’s actions which Reagan proposed. Reagan was using the up or down vote to his advantage by his ability to build a bipartisian support for many of his ideas. The more left leaning Democrats wanted this stopped and so they were able to sustain a vote taking away much of the Presidential powers of pushing through his agenda.
History shows that others have used this for benefit of the nation and others to build their own strength in government. Given Obama’s leaning toward big government and “bypassing Congress” which he stated once again today that he would continue to do
“With or without Congress I’m going to keep at it. But it’d be a lot easier if Congress helped.”
He made the promise to limit his authority
“Let me be clear, I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government."
“With this authority, we'd help businesses grow, save businesses time and save taxpayer dollars," he said, outlining his request for powers to reorganize the federal government.”
But so did another leader with whom I have drawn parallels to Obama before. The other “leader” said this when asking for more power to control government for the good of the people.
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one,"
That same leader used much of the ‘class warfare ‘ language that Obama has used in his time in office to attempt to gain more power.
Obama has bashed Wall Street, the same place where he receives much of his financial support and support for many of his programs.
The other leader did the same in blaming business for the problems of the nation.
“The leaders are big capitalists. 300 big bankers, financiers and press barons, who are interconnected across the world, are the real dictators. They belong almost exclusively to the "chosen people". They are all members of the same conspiracy.
... For years you have sweated so that the State can pay the interest on the loan capital. You are damned for all eternity to be wage slaves, if you don't demand: (1) The Nationalization of the banks and the money economy. (2) The abolition of interest-exploiters and Stock Exchange speculators. (3) The abolition of share capital.
Our call goes out to you who earn your bread through honest work. If you don't want your children, and your children's children to be damned for all eternity as slaves of world capitalism, if you don't want to be made the protectors of Stock Exchange bandits and other blood suckers by your treacherous leaders, ...
Continuously through out Obama’s run up to the presidency and through out his term he has said one thing to one group and another thing to another group in order to get his way.
Another leader did the same thing. What said depended very much on the audience. In rural areas he promised tax cuts for farmers and government acting to protect food prices. In working class areas he spoke of redistribution of wealth and attacked the high profits made by the large chain stores.
Like the other leader Obama has avoided avoided explaining how he would improve the economy. Just like his speech this morning, his overall plan is sketchy.
So I ask is this a power play for more power and re-election or an authentic desire to move away from “big government”.
Once given this power will it become a re-play of the “Enabling Act” given to another leader in the last century and will we see a similar scene played out in Congress?
A member of the "legislature" screamed:
"No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."
The leader responded:
"You are no longer needed! The star ...will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"
The vote was taken – 441 for, and only 84
Democracy was ended. They had brought down the ... Republic legally. From this day onward, the ... (Congress) would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for ...(Obama’s) pronouncements.