Since being sworn in, he has:

• Signed a bill to spend $1.9 trillion for COVID ‘relief’
• Proposed spending another $2.0 trillion for ‘infrastructure’
• Proposed $1.5 trillion of discretionary spending in the U.S. government’s budget

It’s no surprise that much of this new spending is being funded by borrowing. Through Wednesday, April 7, 2021, the U.S. government’s total public debt outstanding has risen by $329.6 billion to $28,081.5 billion. That’s an average of $4.28 billion of new borrowing per day.

What really stands out however is that the U.S. government has borrowed nearly all that money from the Federal Reserve. In the 77 days from January 20 through April 7, 2021, the Fed’s balance sheet increased by $215.5 billion worth of U.S. government-issued treasuries, which accounts for 65% of the increase in the government’s total public debt outstanding by itself.

The Fed’s percentage share of the net increase in the national debt rises to 91% when you add in its acquisition of $84.8 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities issued by U.S. government-supported enterprises backed by the U.S. Treasury.

That dominating share says a lot about how President Biden intends to fund all his new spending.

What could possibly go wrong for ordinary Americans?

The post Who Is Paying for President Biden’s Spending? appeared first on The Beacon.

Except that’s not what happens. More often than not, the problem doesn’t get fixed. Elected officials and bureaucrats will often claim that is because they don’t have enough tax dollars. They say if only they had more, they could hire more and better people to fix the problem. Then, the problem will be fixed. Problem solved!

Except that’s not what happens either. Writing at RealClearPolicy, Adam Andrzejewski of Open the Books described what happened when the people of San Francisco wanted the city government to clean up the problem of human feces being deposited on the streets of San Francisco:

In 2019, we highlighted a tripling in reported human waste in the public way. Citizens filed 10,644 complaints in 2014 and the number of complaints escalated to 30,996 cases by 2019.

Our auditors mapped 118,352 case reports of human waste on city streets – from 2011 to 2019.

The city government of San Francisco employs an entire department of public works. Among its many duties, it has long been tasked with keeping city streets and public sidewalks clean.

In one of America’s richest cities, it is not lacking for money. And yet, during these years, the problem the people wanted fixed got worse.

What’s wrong with this picture?

This picture ignores the incentives of the bureaucrats tasked with fixing the problems the people want solved. Many come to realize they can use their official positions in ways that make them richer. Many get generous raises and benefits for just doing their regular jobs. Others find ways to supplement their generous pay or to cut back on the work they do. Some do both, getting paid more for working less and also supplementing their pay.

Guess which scenario explains the dirty streets of San Francisco?

Mohammed Nuru, the public works director and self-titled @MrCleanSF, was in charge of keeping city streets clean and oversaw a $500 million budget. He was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2020.

Nuru was charged with one count of alleged public corruption and is innocent until proven guilty. “The complaint describes a web of corruption involving bribery, kickbacks, and side deals by one of San Francisco’s highest-ranking city employees,” said U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson. “The public is entitled to honest work from public officials, free from manipulation for the official’s own personal benefit and profit.”

Nuru was well paid in his futile attempt to keep San Francisco streets clean. His total taxpayer-funded cash compensation in 2019 was $380,120, and his base salary had jumped by $65,000 over eight years. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com compiled Nuru’s pay based on Freedom of Information Act requests filed with the City of San Francisco.

It Didn’t Happen by Accident

Nuru did not get his job by accident. He was hired by other public officials seeking someone who shared their values. He was selected because they believe he shares their view of serving the public. And because he shares their view of the public.

By all accounts, he does. Bureaucrats are nothing if not very good at hiring who they want when they have jobs to fill. How they go on to perform in those jobs says a lot about how they see the public and their role as public servants.

The dirty streets of San Francisco are a testament to their beliefs. What other lessons should we take away from them?

The post Lessons from the Dirty Streets of San Francisco appeared first on The Beacon.

Think of qualified immunity as serving as a protective veil for bureaucrats. It empowers government officials to engage in unethical behavior they otherwise would not. That’s because the privilege of qualified immunity protects them from the cost of defending their individual misconduct. Piercing the government veil by allowing victims to directly sue these perpetrators for their on-the-job misdeeds can be a powerful tool for government accountability.

Two stories involving small steps toward piercing the government veil made the news last week. In the first story, the government of New York City ended qualified immunity for police officers. In taking that action, it became the first city in the U.S. to do so. This is a small step that should be expanded to include all New York City government officials.

The second story involves the University of Iowa, a public university. Here, three university officials were found to have discriminated against a campus group because of its religious affiliation. In their intentional discrimination, they violated the group members’ rights under the Constitution.

In ruling against the university officials, who are state government employees, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals made no bones about what they viewed as the officials’ unconstitutional conduct in the case. They also stripped the university officials of any privilege to claim qualified immunity for their actions:

The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield good-faith actors who make mistaken judgments about unresolved issues of law, and it protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (citation omitted). But we do not need the benefit of hindsight to know that the individual defendants’ choices were prohibited by the Constitution. They had more than “fair warning” that their conduct was unconstitutional. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (citation omitted). In fact, they knew it was. See Maj. Op. 24.

The law is clear: state organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they should not get qualified immunity.

The Appeals Court sent the case back to the lower court. The next step of the legal process will set the cost of damages the three university employees must pay their victims. Better still, that money must come out of their own pockets. Taxpayers shall be free from paying for these bureaucrats’ bigoted misconduct.

But would this case have ever existed in the first place if not for the doctrine of qualified immunity? If the answer to that question is no, shouldn’t the bureaucrats’ privilege of qualified immunity be permanently pierced?

The post Small Steps in Piercing the Government Veil appeared first on The Beacon.

One year later, the U.S. government has spent $6 trillion to provide relief from the coronavirus pandemic.

Of that total, $37 billion was spent on Operation Warp Speed’s development of several vaccines. The vaccines are the main benefit that Americans will receive out of $6 trillion of COVID relief spending. That’s because once enough Americans have been vaccinated, the threat of the coronavirus will dissipate. Life can and will go back to normal.

The Operation Warp Speed vaccines, therefore, account for 0.6% of the total cost of COVID pandemic relief, but the lion’s share of the benefits for Americans.

Where Did the Other 99.4% of the Money Go?

By and large, most of the other money goes to cover the cost of mistakes made by state and local politicians. Specifically, because of the lockdown measures they adopted.

The lockdowns they mandated cost millions of people their jobs. The lockdowns they imposed wrecked entire industries. The lockdowns they promised would save lives, but which have yet to show they have, despite having had a year to prove it. The lockdowns require a massive bailout by the federal government to cover the cost of their ongoing damage.

In trying to compensate for those mistakes, the federal bailout has been wasteful. More than $200 billion is suspected to have been lost to unemployment fraud. If you dig deeper, as in California, you find state government bureaucrats enabled that fraud on a massive scale. Multiplied across the nation, unemployment fraud has been five times more costly than the entire cost of the Operation Warp Speed vaccine program.

But there’s more to wasteful spending than just fraud.

The Scale of Spending and Waste

The Foundation for Economic Education’s Brad Polumbo describes the scale of the federal government’s COVID spending and where it is being spent with the least benefit:

The sheer immensity of this spending is hard to grasp. For context, $6 trillion is more than one-fourth of what the US economy produces in an entire year, according to Fox Business. The COVID spending blowout is at least eight times bigger than the (inflation-adjusted) price tag of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”

Moreover, the COVID spending bills have all lost huge sums of money to unrelated carve-outs, politician pet projects, corporate bailouts, fraud, waste, and worse.

In the latest $1.9 trillion package, more than 90 percent of the spending is not directly related to containing COVID-19. Only 1 percent of the money, about $15 to $20 billion, is spent on vaccines. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions go to bailing out poorly managed state governments’ budget holes that predate the pandemic and $86 billion rescues failing pension plans. Meanwhile, billions more go to Obamacare expansion and subsidizing public schools long after the pandemic.

And that’s just scratching the surface.

Polombo estimates the federal government’s $6 trillion in COVID spending could have $18,181 checks for each individual American. How much did you and the rest of the members of your household receive in COVID aid and benefits?

If it’s less than $18,181 per person in your household, you’ve been shafted. Much of the money your household isn’t getting is benefiting the people who did the most damage requiring relief. Shouldn’t we get accountability from them in return for the disproportionate rewards they are now receiving for their lockdowns?

The post COVID Relief: Where Did All That Money Go? appeared first on The Beacon.

Here’s the CBO’s chart showing that gloomy outlook:

Here is how Reuters describes the CBO’s projected runaway growth of the U.S. government’s debt:

The U.S. federal debt burden will double over the next 30 years, reaching 202% of economic output in 2051, as deficits grow and interest rates eventually rise, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday in its latest long-term budget projections.

The non-partisan CBO projected that federal debt will reach 102% of gross domestic product in 2021 due to massive spending associated with the coronavirus pandemic. This spending is expected to fade over the next decade, shrinking annual deficits to an average of 4.4% of GDP in the 2022-2031 period, from 10.3% in 2021.

But deficits are forecast to then grow to average 7.9% of GDP in the 2032-2041 period and 11.5% of GDP in the 2042-2051 period, the CBO said in its projections, which it noted are based on currently enacted laws.

The culprit behind the runaway debt will come as no surprise: runaway government spending. The CBO provides the following three-part chart to show that unrestrained spending will cause the exponential growth of the national debt well above the national emergency levels of both World War 2 and the Coronavirus Pandemic.

One of the two biggest drivers in the U.S. government’s rising spending is the combined expenditures for major health care programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and to sustain the Affordable Care Act. The bigger driver, however, is net interest on the national debt, which is itself driven by two factors. The national debt has already grown to an enormous size, and the CBO reasonably expects interest rates will rise in the future.

Outside the CBO’s Current Long-Term Outlook

Reuters also reports what the CBO’s projections do not include:

The projections do not include any effects of President Joe Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, nor his planned investments in infrastructure, education and research.

The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan lacks bipartisan support because the spending bill is larded with waste. Wasteful expenditures include political payoffs and bailouts to support the special interests of politicians and bureaucrats.

But Wait, It Gets Worse

As written, the newly passed legislation is filled with so much waste analysts believe it will shrink the U.S. economy into the future:

Scholars at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business analyzed the plan and found that the massive spending splurge—which costs roughly $13,260 per federal taxpayer—would only cause a “slight uptick” in economic growth in 2021. The analysts warned that this minor boost would just be “instant gratification,” and that the skyrocketing government debt caused by the blowout legislation would undermine any gains in the medium-to-long term.

“The existence of the debt saps the rest of the economy,” Wharton analyst Efraim Berkovich said. “When the government is running budget deficits, the money that could have gone to productive investment is redirected.”

“Effectively, what we’re doing is taking money from [some] people and giving it to other people for consumption purposes,” he continued. “That has value for social safety nets and redistributive benefits, but longer-term, you’re taking away from the capital that we need to grow our economy in the future.”

What Berkovich describes is the outcome of the failure of fiscal discipline by President Biden and the leaders of the U.S. Congress. Ordinary Americans will ultimately pay the price for their shared failings.

The post The $1.9 Trillion “Rescue” Plan May Cause Small Uptick in the Short Term, but Will Only Add to Future Economic Growth Woes appeared first on The Beacon.

The answer to that riddle is nothing good, unless you’re one of the foxes. In economics, that question is built into a concept called regulatory capture, which is a bad thing. Here’s a good definition:

Regulatory capture is an economic theory that says regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating. The result is that an agency, charged with acting in the public interest, instead acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

In the federal government, we often see regulatory capture in the revolving door for bureaucrats who go in and out of government from a handful of industries. While they are in government, they use their sway to benefit their respective businesses. When they leave government, they often cash in by becoming lobbyists.

But regulatory capture can happen at even the lowest levels of government. Like school boards.

What Do the Foxes Think of the Hens?

Here, teachers unions represent the foxes. The parents and communities who pay taxes for public schools to educate their children represent the hens. In whose interests do you think public schools are run when elected school boards are controlled by the foxes?

That’s not a rhetorical question, which the recent example of California’s Oakley School District Board makes clear. In a recent online Zoom meeting, members of the board talked among themselves, thinking that no parents had yet dialed into the call. Speaking candidly, they revealed both who’s interests they think they serve and an intense contempt for the hens.

In one of the most appalling displays of school board behavior ever caught on tape – the Oakley Union Elementary School District Board did not realize they were already Zooming LIVE before their February 17 School District Board Meeting, giving parents a disturbing glimpse of how they really feel.

Concerned parents had already begun to Zoom in for last night’s (Feb 17) OEUSD School Board meeting as the trustees were already engaged in a lengthy conversation about how to limit public comment from parents, sharing their frustration at having to listen to parents, and how to deal with these people that “just want their babysitters back.”

The board appears live on the open district Zoom call as the board is strategizing ways in which they could hear less of parents’ public comments, or hopefully avoid direct dialogue altogether, with a possible recorded message format that, OUESD Superintendent Greg Hetrick shared, would only take comments in advance of the meeting and cuts off parents’ questions and comments at 3 minutes.

This format would enable the board to avoid direct dialogue with desperate parents trying to find solutions for their children and prepare responses in advance. In the City of Oakley, strong with middle-class working families, public school children have suffered spikes in depression-related pediatrician visits, suicide attempts, have been sex-trafficked via laptop computers, have dropped out of school, and 40% of all students Zoom in to school each day alone – as their parents work.

Here’s the video of the call.

There is good news, in that all of the Oakley school board members who participated in the call have been forced to resign.

How the Foxes Took Over a School Board

What you won’t find reported in these stories is that each of these members have ties to the Oakley Union Teachers’ Association (OUTA) and the California State Employees Association, having either been endorsed by these unions or appointed to the school board by members who were. The foxes were in control of the Oakley School Board henhouse and they ran it in their own interests.

That is the bureaucratic capture of an elected government organization. As economic theory predicts, nothing good came from it. Especially for the hens.

The post The Foxes’ Bureaucratic Capture of the Henhouse appeared first on The Beacon.

Only recently have some of those restrictions begun to be lifted. Some have yielded to public pressure, others have required intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court because of the abuses of individual rights by California’s bureaucrats.

But many more remain in place, allowing California’s public officials and bureaucrats to target businesses they don’t like. That brings us to the city of Los Angeles, the home to Bravery Brewing Company, a 10-year old family-owned microbrewery that has been the target of local government bureaucrats imposing their unique interpretation of state and local COVID restrictions. Christopher Bedford of The Federalist picks up the story:

Like other business owners across the country, the Averys have struggled through wind destroying their tents and cold weather driving away customers with no end in sight, but the indignities and incompetence the business was subjected to on Super Bowl Sunday, Bart tells The Federalist, are just pushing people like him to the brink.

Bravery Brewing Company doesn’t have any televisions, so Sunday, Feb. 7 was set up like previous Super Bowl Sundays, with limited hours. This year, knowing people would be setting up their own parties, Bravery opened for just four hours for customers to grab beer to take home with them before kick-off. Because of that, they didn’t pay the few-hundred-dollar minimums food trucks ask to come by—something they’ve been required to do when serving people on-premises because, apparently, COVID.

This year, however, the inspectors are in charge, and surveillance footage shared with The Federalist shows Los Angeles County inspector Jatinder Chhabra entering the building just over half an hour after they opened. They had to shut down right now, she informed the employee, who was ringing up two customers at that moment. Why? No food truck.

When he protested, saying they were doing take-out only, Chhabra informed him that made no difference. She was “brash,” Bart recalls the employee telling him, and “arrogant, and she could give a sh-t less about shutting us down.”

When the employee put Brian Avery, the brewer, on the line with Chhabra, he asked her to call her supervisor. In the 20 minutes Bart estimates it took her to “resolve” her misunderstanding, the brewery was not allowed to serve the customers who were waiting.

The resolution with her supervisor clearly established the Bravery Brewing Company in the right. So all ended well, right?

Then It Got Worse

At this point, you might think the brewery owners and customers were only exposed to a minor inconvenience. Hold onto your hats, because here is where we find the mentality of a bureaucrat intent on punishing a business that successfully questioned their authority comes into play:

Nor was she satisfied when her supervisor informed her that she was mistaken, the brewery and customers were correct, and business could go on. She then told the sole employee on site he had to make copies of 11 different forms—all while customers waited. While the employee filled out the forms, she can be seen rifling through the racks, exploring the bar tools, and even dancing on camera.

Steven Gregory tweeted the video of the government inspector’s dancing:

Not many bureaucrats are captured on camera in the public celebration of their abuses. This episode is a rare example of the personal reward and satisfaction bureaucrats gain through their arbitrary rule making and enforcement.

How many bureaucrats like Jatinder Chhabra do you have working in your local or state government? How many bureaucrats like Jatinder Chhabra are there in the federal government?

The answer to both questions is too many. What will you do about it?

The post California Bureaucrats Behaving Badly appeared first on The Beacon.

It was delivered on September 25, 1924. And though the address is nearly a century old, President Calvin Coolidge, notoriously a man of few words, made each sentence seem as fresh today as when he spoke them.

In commemorating the First Continental Congress for the role it played in establishing the United States as an independent nation, President Coolidge delivered a powerful vision of what it takes, and what it means, to live as a citizen in a free republic. It is an address that, in its key elements, is fully vital and current, offering great meaning and context for today’s Americans. Here, running at just over 3,100 words long, is the text of Coolidge’s remarkable speech:

No American coming to Philadelphia on this anniversary could escape being thrilled at the thought of what this commemoration means. It brings to mind events which in the course of the century and a half that has passed since the day we are celebrating have changed the course of human history. Then was formed the ideal of the American nation.

Two years later this was put into practical effect by the Declaration of Independence. Here, too, was prepared and adopted the Federal Constitution, guaranteeing unity and perpetuation of our national life. The place of this imperial city in history is secure.

Your heritage has that mysterious quality by which it has enriched not only your own citizens but the people of the earth. Wherever we find a nation which has gained its liberty, which has shaken itself free from despotism and established a republic, there reigns the influence with which the exalted record of your achievements has directed the destiny of the world.

We cannot do justice to the memory of the men and work of the first Continental Congress without recalling events which preceded it and recognizing the consequences which followed it. The first important act of cooperation among the Colonies had resulted from their need for common defense in the French and Indian War two decades earlier. Even prior to that various royal Governors had proposed some union of the Colonies under a viceroy.

But this meant a weakening of the local and popular assemblies and a broader and more effective control by the Crown. Such proposals were resisted by the inhabitants, who were extremely jealous of their liberties. As far back as 1754 a Colonial conference was held at Albany, on the initiation of the Governors. Only a minority, however, attended.

At that time Benjamin Franklin, with a prophetic vision, proposed a plan of union which bore a remarkable resemblance to our present Constitution. But the people feared this would destroy their local Government, leaving them at the mercy of a distant Parliament, while the English authorities feared that by revealing to the Colonies an accurate knowledge of their own power it would inspire ambitions for independence. So the plan of Franklin at that time found no support on either side of the Atlantic.

But the idea grew. When the English Government entered upon a course which threatened the liberties of the Colonies by passing the Stamp Act and the Boston Port Act, by interfering with the local Assemblies, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, by maintaining a standing army quartered on the people, by denying to the inhabitants the right of trial by a jury of the vicinage, by undertaking to make judicial officers the creatures of the Crown, and other unwarranted tyrannies, the first Continental Congress was assembled to register a solemn protest against these illegal actions.

They came with various credentials from local Assemblies and voluntary conventions, scarcely representing the people in a legal way, but reflecting their spirit in the determination to defend their liberties. It was no ordinary gathering.

Among them were Jay and Livingston, Galloway and Mifflin, Biddle and Chase, Harrison, Lee, Randolph, the Rutledges, the Adamses, and finally, George Washington. They were men of faith, they believed in their cause. They trusted the people. They doubted not that a higher power would support them in their effort for right and freedom.

Judged by the character of the State papers which they produced, and by their later careers in the field or at the council table, after 150 years they still rank as a most remarkable study by the American people. If we could better understand what they said and did to establish our free institutions, we should be less likely to be misled by the misrepresentations and distorted arguments of the hour, and be far better equipped to maintain them.

The Colonists claimed certain rights of self-government. They were determined to maintain that principle. The burden which resulted from the pretentions of King George and his ministers, and the exactions of Parliament, were not of great consequence and could be borne, but the principle which the people declared was of supreme importance.

To acquiesce even in minor violations was to admit that a course of action might be taken which would deprive them of the chartered rights of Englishmen and reduce them to mere subjects. But in their resistance they resorted neither to threats nor extreme measures, but pursued the dignified, stronger and unanswerable course of moderation. The Congress prepared a petition to the King, an address to the people of the Colonies, an address to the people of England, and an address to the people of Quebec.

While they protested vigorously against their grievances, they protested also a loyalty to the Crown and a pride in the Empire. They declared they were supporting the common cause of liberty, both of the colonies and England itself.

“May not a ministry with the same armies enslave you?” they asked the English people. “Do not treat this as chimerical. In less than half a century, the quit-rents reserved to the Crown from this vast continent will pour large streams of wealth into the royal coffers, and if to this be added the power of taxing America at pleasure, the Crown will be rendered independent of you for supplies, and will possess more treasure than will be necessary to purchase the remains of liberty in your island. In a word, take care that you do not fall into the pit that is preparing for us.”

No wonder such a statement aroused the sympathy for the Colonial cause of such broad and liberal statesmen as Pitt and Burke.

But to the Crown and to the traditions of English liberty it contained only expressions of loyalty. The address to King George was an explicit and unmistakable document, but it closed with these words of loyal devotion: “That your Majesty may enjoy every felicity through a long and glorious reign over loyal and happy subjects, and that your descendants may inherit your prosperity and dominions till time shall be no more is and always will be our sincere and fervent prayer.”

They indulged in no bluster, no threats and no departures from the proprieties of a petition to the throne. But they had no hesitation about making a plain statement of the truth because they politely observed, “as your Majesty enjoys the signal distinction of reigning over freemen, we apprehend the language of freemen cannot be displeasing.”

But the Congress did not confine itself to addresses and petitions. It wished not only to win the approbation of the opinion of the world, but to prove its right to speak for the colonies.

It was necessary to show that they were capable of a united action, both powerful and effective, therefore, they adopted the policy of non-intercourse under an agreement known as “The Association.” By it they pledged themselves not to import, export or consume British products and these were not to be brought in after December 1, 1774.

The importation of slaves was to cease. A few months later trade with the West Indies was to be suspended. Exports to Great Britain and Ireland were prohibited. Merchants refusing to adopt these boycott agreements were to feel the boycott of the people. The production and manufacture of wool was to be encouraged. Local committees were to enforce these proposals by the power of public opinion.

The Association enjoined frugality thus:

“We will discountenance and discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse racing, and all kinds of gaming, cock fighting, exhibitions of shows, plays and other expensive diversions and entertainments.”

The non-intercourse agreement was to continue until Parliament repealed the objectionable laws. This bold measure was denounced by many in England as treasonable, but it has often been referred to in this country as the beginning of the movement for independence. Where appeals and supplications had been disregarded, this could not fail to secure earnest attention.

In the declaration of the Congress there was no note of defiance, but their very moderation increased their influence. The vigor of their argument and the logic of their legal position were relied upon to defend their cause. While there was a growing feeling that conflict impended, the Congress carefully avoided anything that could be distorted into provocation for a resort to arms. Here was the great strength of their position.

Because of their restraint they secured the confidence of the most influential forces at home and abroad. They promoted union among the colonies while promoting dissension in England. They compelled the sympathy of the great Whig leaders, who could not support liberty in England while denying it in the Colonies.

It would be difficult to find a better illustration of the superiority of moderation and candor over violence and deceit in seeking a solution of difficult public questions.

It is easy to draw broad indictments or indulge in sweeping promises. It is no trouble to indulge in invective. But denunciation does not provide a remedy. In moderation and restraint is much more likely to be found a way to agreement upon constructive measures.

Appeals to violence and hatred in the First Continental Congress might have produced a rebellion, but they could not have accomplished revolution. They might have led to war, but they could not have secured victory.

Almost all our history as an independent and united nation can be traced back to the assembling of the first Continental Congress, which we are met to celebrate. Our achievements have been wrought by adherence to its policies of reason and restraint, accompanied by firmness and determination. We are not likely to desert that course of action now.

The case which the Congress stated was unanswerable. One side or the other must either give way or maintain its position by force of arms. That conflict for which the Congress had laid the logical foundation was not long in beginning. Liberty never won a more substantial and far reaching victory than that which resulted from our Revolutionary War. It established the American nation, with all that it has since meant in the accomplishments of the world and all that it holds of future promise. A form of government was organized in harmony with what Franklin had proposed at Albany in 1754.

But the Constitution was not adopted until various experiments with unworkable systems showed some such action necessary. Whatever may be the reputation of that great instrument at home, modified and adapted to local needs, it has been adopted as the fundamental law for republics in every quarter of the world.

The influence of that great document, framed in Philadelphia in 1787, can be traced in every constitution on earth, from China to Peru, from the Australian Commonwealth to the German Republic. They all bear the same testimony.

The idea of a republic was not new, but the practical working out of such a form of government under separate and independent and yet well balanced departments, was a very new thing in the world. The governments of the past could fairly be characterized as devices for maintaining in perpetuity the place and position of certain privileged classes, without any ultimate protection for the rights of the people.

The Government of the United States is a device for maintaining in perpetuity the rights of the people, with the ultimate extinction of all privileged classes. It is a Constitution which is the product of human experience with all its toil and suffering, its blood shed and devastation, its oppression and tyranny, but like wise with all its wisdom, its love of liberty and its determination to follow the truth.

The First Continental Congress met to redress grievances which were the result of Government action. The Revolution was fought to resist those same grievances, and finally, the Constitution was adopted to prevent similar impositions from ever again being inflicted upon the people.

They are all in that precious document, these priceless guarantees. The people do not propose again to entrust their government to others, but to retain it under their own control. No one can tax them or even propose a tax upon them, save themselves and their own representatives.

Instead of encroaching upon local Assemblies, it guarantees each state a republican form of government. It regulates suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. It protects the home from the uninvited intrusion of the military force of the Government.

It guards the right of jury trial and undertakes to make judicial officers independent, impartial and free from every motive to follow any influence save that of the evidence, the law and the truth. These are representative of the great body of our liberties, of which the Constitution is the sole source and guarantee.

Ours, as you know, is a Government of limited powers. The Constitution confers the authority for certain actions upon the President and the Congress, and explicitly prohibits them from taking other actions. This is done to protect the rights and liberties of the people.

The Government is limited; only the people are absolute. Whenever the legislative or executive power undertakes to overstep the bounds of its limitations any person who is injured may resort to the courts for protection and remedy. We do not submit the precious rights of the people to the hazard of a prejudiced and irresponsible political determination, but preserve and protect them by an independent and impartial judicial determination.

We do not expose the rights of the weak to the danger of being overcome in the public forum by popular uproar, but protect them in the sanctity of the courtroom, where the still, small voice will not fail to be heard.

Any attempt to change this method of procedure is an attempt to put the people again in jeopardy of the impositions and the tyrannies from which the First Continental Congress sought to deliver them.

The only position that Americans can take is that they are against all despotism, whether it emanate from a monarch, from a parliament, or from a mob.

A significant circumstance of the First Congress, one which ought never to be overlooked, lies in the fact that it resulted from the voluntary effort on the part of the people to redress their own grievances and remedy their own wrongs. We pay too little attention to the reserve power of the people to take care of themselves.

We are too solicitous for Government intervention, on the theory, first, that the people themselves are helpless, and second, that the Government has superior capacity for action. Often times both of these conclusions are wrong.

Every one knows that our economic problems are very far from being solved. But we are making constant progress, both in the field of production and distribution. When certain abuses arose, we adopted a policy of Government regulation and control.

I have no doubt that some action of that kind was necessary, and of course, such a policy would be continued. But it has not been, nor can it be hoped that it will be, always wisely administered. While it provides some defense against wrongdoing, its restrictions often hamper development and progress, retard enterprise, and when they fail to produce the perfection promised tend to bring the Government into discredit.

The real fact is that in a Republic like ours the people are the Government, and if they cannot secure perfection in their own economic life it is altogether improbable that the Government can secure it for them. The same human nature which presides over private enterprise must be employed for public action.

It is very difficult to reconcile the American ideal of a sovereign people capable of owning and managing their own government with an inability to own and manage their own business. No doubt there are certain municipalities where some public utilities have been managed through public ownership with a creditable success. But this is very different from a proposal that the National Government should take over railroads and other public utilities.

What a strain this would be to our economic system will be realized when it is remembered that public commissions set the value of such utilities at about $35,000,000,000, and that they have about 2,750,000 employees. Such an under taking would mean about $1,750,000,000 annually in bond interest, and an operating budget estimated at about $9,000,000,000.

These utilities are no longer in the hands of a few, directly or indirectly. They are owned by scores of millions of our inhabitants. It would mean a loss in public revenue estimated at $600,000,000 a year, and while in industrial states it might not increase the tax on the farmer more than 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., in many agricultural counties it would run as high as 40 per cent.

When we recall the appalling loss and the difficulty in the management of $3,500,000,000 worth of ships, we should undoubtedly hesitate about taking on ten times that value in public utilities. But this is no occasion to discuss the details of public ownership.

I have mentioned the desirability for the people to keep control of their own government and their own property, because I believe that is one of the American ideals of public welfare in harmony with the efforts of the first Continental Congress. They objected to small infractions, which would destroy great principles of liberty.

Unless we can maintain the integrity of the courts, where the individual can secure his rights, any kind of tyranny may follow.

If the people lose control of the arteries of trade; and the natural sources of mechanical power, the nationalization of all industry could soon be expected. Our forefathers were alert to resist all encroachments upon their rights.

If we wish to maintain our rights, we can do no less. Through the breaking down of the power of the courts lies an easy way to the confiscation of the property and the destruction of the liberty of the individual.

With railways and electrical utilities under political control, the domination of a group would be so firmly entrenched in the whole direction of our Government, that the privilege of citizenship for the rest of the people would consist largely in the payment of taxes.

The Fathers sought to escape from any such condition, through the guarantees of our Constitution. They put their faith in a free republic.

If we wish to maintain what they established, we shall do well to leave the people in the ownership of their property, in control of their Government and under the protection of their courts.

By a resolute determination to resist all these encroachments we can best show our reverence and appreciation for the men and the work of the first Continental Congress.

The amazing thing about President Coolidge’s address is that it would only take a handful of changes to the contemporary examples he gave to make the speech fully apply in the United States of 2021. Its meaning is both timely and timeless.

Who, among all those who would be President of the United States of America, could give such an address today?

The post Coolidge’s Enduring Thoughts on the Meaning of a Free Republic appeared first on The Beacon.