A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

Would this proposal mean that the federal gov't could not declare certain areas as disasters, and no federal support could be provided? Floods , fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, we couldn't help those specific affected people?

I can see a very very limited role for FEMA using taxpayer dollars. Certainly the government should have ability to dispatch a Coast Guard chopper to pull people off a sinking ship or for other such immediate humanitarian emergencies. I can see the federal government furnishing trucks and other equipment to help clear roads or otherwise open up emergency routes after a major disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake. When state and local facilities are overwhelmed, certainly set up emergency field hospitals or whatever could be absolutely essential for human life.

But as for compensating those who suffer loss and providing on going maintenance during the rebuilding process or conducting rebuilding of anything that the federal government didn't put there in the first place, that should not be a function of the federal government. They can declare the emergency and, if practical, can even receive and distribute donations for the relief effort, but that should be the limit.

 

[Wiseacre]

???? Why the emphasis on interest rates? That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?

Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money. If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

 

[Amelia]

How does one measure benefits? Making sure that something equally benefits 300 million people seems to me an impossible hurdle.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Founders could not have envisioned how our country would change.

 

[Foxfyre]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

OK,

I like it. Since all federal funds will be distributed on a per capita basis, red states will finally be forced to stop living off the welfare of blue states.

The extra money can be distributed on a state level, and big population states like New York will finally not only not have to pay for all the extra funding enjoyed by Montana and Alaska, but can distribute it to whomever they wish.

However, I would insist the following addendum be added, since we're going to have a Constitutional Convention and all:

1. The practice of usury or "loan sharking", defined as "lending money to anyone with said loan having an interest rate exceeding 10%, is hereby made illegal in the United States.

Any debt that is currently held wherein the bearer is being charged interest of more than 10% shall immediately have their interest lowered below the legal rate.

Creditors can, of course, feel free to stop extending new credit to whomever they wish, if they feel this law to be too much of a burden.

Kudos for giving this some intelligent thought. And I believe there are laws in all 50 states regulating/forbidding usurous interest rates.

But how do interest rates tie into a resultuion restricting what government can spend our money on? Am I missing something there?

Otherwise, you are right that the savvyest or most favored legislators would not be able to drag a disproportionate amount of pork into their respective states. But there wouldn't be any 'extra money' to distribute. The federal government would simply be taxing much less so that the states would keep much more of the money generated in their respective states. And without federal money to cover their ineptness and irresponsibility in governing, a whole bunch of state governments would be inspired to clean up their acts to facilitate more prosperity within their respective states. Could be a win win for everybody except for those who profit from the corruption.

 

[dblack]

I support it as written, though I'd probably make some minor changes if I had my druthers. I particularly don't see why it shouldn't extend to states as well. Equal protection is really what we're talking about. The fourteenth - if interpreted by a sane court, would already cover most of this.

 

[dblack]

???? Why the emphasis on interest rates? That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?

Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money. If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I support it as written, though I'd probably make some minor changes if I had my druthers. I particularly don't see why it shouldn't extend to states as well. Equal protection is really what we're talking about. The fourteenth - if interpreted by a sane court, would already cover most of this.

I wouldn't want to include that provision because 'equal protection', other than regarding unalienable rights, was never considered to apply to anybody other than the federal govenrment. To me it turns the intent of the Constitution on its head for the federal government to dictate to ANYBODY the sort of society they are required to organize and maintain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gentle aside to those just now entering the thread: do note that this thread is in the CDZ and therefore subject to specific civility rules. You're all doing that really well already, but just want everybody to be aware where we are so we don't inadvertently lose anybody. I'm enjoying everybody's input.

 

[Foxfyre]

And what do you think. Would the resolution as written, should it be adopted as a Constitutional amendment, help the Supreme Court in some of its rulings? Or further confuse it?

 

[Vast LWC]

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

Which would be a good thing, altogether.

 

[Vast LWC]

Kudos for giving this some intelligent thought. And I believe there are laws in all 50 states regulating/forbidding usurous interest rates.

Individual state laws on usury were effectively done away with 20 years ago.

Two court cases effectively invalidated state usury laws, Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp in 1978 and Smiley vs. Citibank in 1996.

Marquette held that national banks could charge credit card customers the highest interest rate allowed in the bank's home state, as opposed to the customer's. As a result, major banks moved to states like South Dakota and Delaware, where there were no usury ceilings on rates.2 Because the credit card market is dominated by national issuers, what few state usury laws remain are irrelevant.

In 1996, Smiley effected the same outcome for fees which, like interest rates, used to be regulated at the state level. Late fees averaged $16 before Smiley. Now, it's $32.3.

Credit Card Industry Practices: In Brief | Demos

But how do interest rates tie into a resultuion restricting what government can spend our money on? Am I missing something there?

If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.

Otherwise, you are right that the savvyest or most favored legislators would not be able to drag a disproportionate amount of pork into their respective states. But there wouldn't be any 'extra money' to distribute. The federal government would simply be taxing much less so that the states would keep much more of the money generated in their respective states. And without federal money to cover their ineptness and irresponsibility in governing, a whole bunch of state governments would be inspired to clean up their acts to facilitate more prosperity within their respective states. Could be a win win for everybody except for those who profit from the corruption.

There would in fact be "extra money" to distribute, as many people would eventually have more capital to engage in consumption, as well as to invest in creating small local businesses, giving state and local economies a lift, rather than just feeding their hard earned money to the corporate banks.

 

[Vast LWC]

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

A loan shark is no one's savior.

They simply delay the pain, causing more pain over time.

There have always been laws against usury on the books. It is only a recent phenomenon that they were made effectively useless, and that corporate banks became loan sharks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kudos for giving this some intelligent thought. And I believe there are laws in all 50 states regulating/forbidding usurous interest rates.

Individual state laws on usury were effectively done away with 20 years ago.

Two court cases effectively invalidated state usury laws, Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp in 1978 and Smiley vs. Citibank in 1996.

Marquette held that national banks could charge credit card customers the highest interest rate allowed in the bank's home state, as opposed to the customer's. As a result, major banks moved to states like South Dakota and Delaware, where there were no usury ceilings on rates.2 Because the credit card market is dominated by national issuers, what few state usury laws remain are irrelevant.

In 1996, Smiley effected the same outcome for fees which, like interest rates, used to be regulated at the state level. Late fees averaged $16 before Smiley. Now, it's $32.3.

Credit Card Industry Practices: In Brief | Demos

But how do interest rates tie into a resultuion restricting what government can spend our money on? Am I missing something there?

If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.

Otherwise, you are right that the savvyest or most favored legislators would not be able to drag a disproportionate amount of pork into their respective states. But there wouldn't be any 'extra money' to distribute. The federal government would simply be taxing much less so that the states would keep much more of the money generated in their respective states. And without federal money to cover their ineptness and irresponsibility in governing, a whole bunch of state governments would be inspired to clean up their acts to facilitate more prosperity within their respective states. Could be a win win for everybody except for those who profit from the corruption.

There would in fact be "extra money" to distribute, as many people would eventually have more capital to engage in consumption, as well as to invest in creating small local businesses, giving state and local economies a lift, rather than just feeding their hard earned money to the corporate banks.

Well as for those usurous interest rates, you made me look it up. And it appears you are right that there are no rules here in New Mexico which is probaby why New Mexico, though I love it, sucks in so many different categories.

But it appears that most states do still have usury laws. Texas for instance has that 10% rate you suggest:
Usury Laws by State – LoanBack

Will address your other point in a separate post. . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

LWC posted in his previous post:

If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.

In one sense I agree. It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs. . . but. . . .

We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.

Except for allocating tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff. I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

That may be, but it’s not justification for amending the Constitution to balance the budget. The problems with how such an amendment might work (poorly) notwithstanding, this effort is motivated by partisan politics, not sound public policy. It’s normal and appropriate for a First World industrialized Nation such as the United State to have its Federal budget fluctuate between deficit and surplus and back to deficit again; the problem isn’t an unbalanced budget per se, but the size of the deficit and length of time a budget stays away from surplus.

However difficult, the solution lies with the political will of the people and their desire to make a lasting change, it can’t be forced upon them from the top down.

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

According to whom? Evidence in support? In order to make a successful effort to amend the Constitution, one must provide credible, objective evidence in support of the reasons why the amendment should be ratified, not subjective inference and speculation.

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

Subjective partisan dogma, undocumented, irrelevant, and not justification for an amendment to the Constitution all citizens must abide. Attempting to mitigate an undesirable aspect of human nature is a matter of social engineering, not a matter of Constitutional law.

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

According to what authority? Congress is currently subject to any number of limitations. See e.g. US v. Butler (1936), South Dakota v. Dole (1987), US v. Lopez (1995), US v. Morrison (2000), and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), where the Court just this year placed restrictions on Congress’ power as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

‘Entitlement mentality’? Again, this isn’t objective public policy, this is subjective partisan politics.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem.

Such a proposal is utterly untenable. What criteria would be used to determine what is or is not a ‘benevolence or benefit,’ what criteria would be used to identify an ‘unworthy’ person, group, demographic, or entity not entitled to a benevolence or benefit, and how on earth are the courts going to interpret such an amendment when lawsuits are filed claiming Equal Protection and Due Process violations?

 

[Foxfyre]

Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money. If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

I agree, but I do think that full disclosure must be applied. If somebody is making a loan at a usurous rate, he should not be able to deflect or obscure or omit advising the borrower how much he or she will be requiredf to pay back and when.

 

[dblack]

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

A loan shark is no one's savior.

You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.

 

[dblack]

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

I agree, but I do think that full disclosure must be applied. If somebody is making a loan at a usurous rate, he should not be able to deflect or obscure or omit advising the borrower how much he or she will be requiredf to pay back and when.

Totally agree there. Ensuring transparency and honest dealings is exactly the function we need government to provide when it comes to economic regulation. Unfortunately, the regulatory state often serves merely to obscure things further.

 

[Vast LWC]

Well as for those usurous interest rates, you made me look it up. And it appears you are right that there are no rules here in New Mexico which is probaby why New Mexico, though I love it, sucks in so many different categories.

But it appears that most states do still have usury laws. Texas for instance has that 10% rate you suggest:
Usury Laws by State – LoanBack

Will address your other point in a separate post. . . .

It doesn't matter the local state usury laws are.

The court ruling decided that banks only need to obey the usury laws of the state they are headquartered in.

That, combined with the interstate banking deregulation of the '90s, allowed Credit card companies to completely avoid state usury laws, by headquartering themselves in states that have more lax laws.