As Congress rolls out its latest theatrical production concerning the “debt ceiling,” the same old lines from the same old script are enjoying new life.

New York Magazine‘s Jonathan Chait calls Republican noises about perhaps not just automatically supporting increased government borrowing “extortion”  and a “blatant violation of democratic legitimacy” (because, as you no doubt learned in junior high civics class, even entertaining the idea of not voting in favor of Jonathan Chait’s priorities is forbidden by the US Constitution).

US Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) accuses the Republicans of “hostage-taking.”

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says linking spending cuts in the future to increased borrowing now is “a very irresponsible thing to do.”

I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Among my many reasons for being neither a Republican nor a Democrat is that the only time either party even pretends to care about “fiscal responsibility” is when the other party holds the White House. Had Donald Trump been re-elected in 2020, Republicans would be saying what Democrats are saying now and vice versa.

The current Democratic criticisms of Republicans’ debt ceiling theatrics are, on the whole, correct … if they’re levied at both major parties and the whole of the federal government.

The whole matter of the “national debt” is a classic case of extortion, hostage-taking, and irresponsibility.

The US government, both parties, has run up $31 trillion in debt, routinely spending far more than it takes in and putting the deficit on its bar tab.

At any suggestion that it pay down its debts and live within its means, the extortion and hostage-taking commences.

Whatever your favorite federal program — “defense” spending, Social Security, farm subsidies, whatever —  you’re told it’s on the chopping block if politicians are required to take any responsibility for any decision other than just borrowing more money to pay for anything and everything they might happen to want.

Oh, someone will take responsibility LATER, of course. Future generations will deal with it, right? For now, just swipe that credit card and enjoy bone-in ribeye and premium IPA seven days a week instead of throwing in even the occasional Meatless Monday or ramen feast.

Which is exactly what will happen this time, possibly with a little fake “shutdown” drama first.

Government is comprised entirely of irresponsible hostage-taking extortionists who are betting they’ll win … and that when they stop winning, it’s YOU who will lose.

Unfortunately, they’re probably right.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 30, several Florida legislators introduced HB 543, “Concealed Carry of Weapons and Firearms Without a License.” If passed, it would “allow” anyone — Floridian or not — who “meets specified requirements” to carry concealed firearms in the state.

Many gun rights supporters laud HB 543 as not just a good step, but something called “constitutional carry,” even though among other defects, it doesn’t seem to legalize “open” (that is, unconcealed) carry. Let’s review what restrictions the US Constitution empowers government at any level to impose on the possession or carry of firearms:

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

It’s difficult to get more clear or prescriptive than “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” See that period at the end there?

The Florida bill ever so slightly lightens one specific unconstitutional burden on one specific right, while imposing at least one patently unconstitutional burden on those exercising that right: They “[m]ust carry valid identification at all times when he or she is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or concealed firearm and must display such identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.”

Suppose that one does not meet the law’s unconstitutional “specified requirements” — for example, having never been convicted of offenses related to “controlled substances” — but decides to carry  concealed (as is his or her right) anyway.

Requiring that person to provide “valid identification” (“valid” seems to be undefined in the bill) is a requirement that the person incriminate himself or herself, a requirement forbidden by the Fifth Amendment.

Unless a police officer has probable cause to believe that you’re committing or have committed a crime, who you are is none of that police officer’s business. And if  he or she DOES have such probable cause, it’s his or her job to identify you, not your duty to identify yourself.

HB 543 isn’t “constitutional carry.” It’s a partial relaxation of unconstitutional restrictions, combined with new unconstitutional restrictions.

Real “constitutional carry” would look something like this:

“All Florida statutes, regulations, orders, and ordinances relating to the manufacture, sale or other transfer, ownership, or carriage of arms are hereby repealed. All persons charged or held prisoner by the  state of Florida or any subdivision thereof pursuant to such statutes, regulations, orders, and ordinances shall be immediately freed. All convictions of violating such statutes, regulations, orders, and ordinances shall be expunged. A truth and reconciliation commission shall be established to determine the amounts, qualifications, and processes for paying restitution to those damaged or injured by said statutes, regulations, orders, and ordinances.”

The politicians behind HB 543 aren’t on your side, or on the Constitution’s. They’re just making a simple matter complex while sacrificing none of their illegitimate power over you.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Of course,” the late P.J. O’Rourke wrote in Parliament of Whores, by way of explaining why government is boring, “politicians don’t tell the truth …. But neither do politicians tell huge, entertaining whoppers: ‘Why, send yours truly to Capitol Hill, and I’ll ship the swag home in boxcar lots. … There’ll be government jobs for your dog.  … Social Security checks will come in the mail not just when you retire at sixty-five but when you retire each night to bed. Vote for me, folks, and you’ll be farting through silk.'”

O’Rourke seems to have actually preferred a more prosaic style of political falsehood: In 2016, the long-time Republican endorsed Hillary Clinton for president over whopper-prone Donald Trump, citing her “lies and empty promises.” She’s “wrong about absolutely everything,” he said, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

What, I wonder, would O’Rourke (who died last year) have made of US Representative George Santos (R-NY), elected from New York’s 3rd congressional district last November?

Since the election, Santos has been caught in lies concerning where he went to school, whether he graduated, where he’s worked, whether he’s Jewish and whether his grandparents fled the Holocaust, whether his mom was at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and died of a related cancer, whether he’s a drag queen who goes by the name “Kitara Ravache,” whether he actually appeared in an episode of Hannah Montana, and where all that money that he “loaned” his campaign actually came from, etc.

“There are three kinds of lies,” Mark Twain wrote, (falsely!) quoting Benjamin Disraeli: “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Politicians also tell three kinds of lies.

The first kind are lies about themselves — their experiences, their resumes, etc. Hillary Clinton didn’t come under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia. Joe Biden didn’t graduate at the top of his class in law school. Donald Trump can’t even stop himself from lying about winning golf tournaments.

The second kind are lies about policy, and range from what legislation a candidate really supports or opposes (then votes the other way on when elected) to what the actual policies will accomplish.

So far, Santos’s long list of lies really only involves the first of those two kinds. He hasn’t been in office long enough for us to know whether he’ll follow through on his stated policy positions.

The third kind of lie is one which Santos actually helps expose simply because his over-the-top technique draws our attention to it.

That lie is the claim that we, the poor, benighted, helpless public,  desperately need politicians to solve our problems. That they’re somehow better, smarter, wiser, and more honest than the rest of us. That without them, we’re lost.

Is George Santos honest? Clearly not.

Is he any more dishonest than Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Kevin McCarthy? Not a whit.

He’s probably less dangerous than boring ol’ Mitch, Nancy, Chuck, and Kevin, though.  His outrageous lies were aimed at acquiring power. Their mostly unnoticed lies are aimed at exercising that power.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY