Chris Dodd Proposes 'super-regulating' Banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/business/economy/20regulate.html?_r=1

Leading Senator Pushes New Plan to Oversee Banks

* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Reprints

Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — The senior Senate Democrat shepherding legislation to
overhaul the nation's financial system is planning to propose the
merger of four bank agencies into one super-regulator, an idea that is
significantly different from what President Obama envisions.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee,
wants changes in President Obama's financial plan.

The legislation being prepared by Senator Christopher J. Dodd of
Connecticut, who heads the Senate Banking Committee, would also differ
from the Obama plan by diminishing the role of the Federal Reserve as
a systemwide overseer.

Mr. Dodd's plan is intended to be the starting point for the Senate as
it redraws the financial landscape in response to the market crisis.

For consumers, banks and the markets, Mr. Dodd's bill is expected to
take on the same central role in the debate as Senator Max Baucus's
recent bill is to remaking the health care system.

"We clearly need to put in place an architecture that restores
confidence and makes people feel that when they engage in financial
activities, from making a bank deposit to buying insurance or
investing in stock, that they can have confidence in the system," Mr.
Dodd said in an interview on Friday. "On the other side of this, I
don't want to strangle business."

In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, Mr. Obama again
urged Congress to move swiftly to adopt legislation. He also accused
lobbyists for the banks of being "hard at work trying to stop the
reforms that would hold them accountable."

Lawmakers and aides say the bill Mr. Dodd is preparing to make public
in the coming weeks would be more ambitious and politically risky than
the plan offered by the White House, which considered but then decided
against combining the four banking agencies — the Federal Reserve, the
Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation and the Comptroller of the Currency — into one
superagency.

The White House backed away from that plan to avoid a phalanx of
industry opposition that might slow Congress.

In the House, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a Democrat
and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has been working
on legislation that is closer to the Obama plan on consolidation of
the agencies.

Mr. Dodd and others say that the market crisis last year was caused in
part by banks that were able to choose which agency would regulate
them, and by bank agencies that reduced regulations to encourage more
banks to choose them.

That problem would be eliminated if there were only one bank agency.

The Dodd plan is certain to run into sharp resistance from banking
industry lobbyists, who have already been urging lawmakers to defeat
it even before it is formally introduced.

It is also likely to face stiff opposition from bank regulators, who
are protective of their turf and have already raised objections about
the more modest Obama plan.

Mr. Dodd, who faces a difficult re-election campaign in Connecticut
partly because of the perception that he is cozy with the banking
industry, decided two weeks ago to remain chairman of the banking
committee rather than succeed his close friend, the late Senator
Edward M. Kennedy, as head of the health committee.

Senior Democrats in Congress say Mr. Dodd may have to thread a needle
as he publicly takes on the financial services industry — whose
members have a heavy presence in Connecticut and are some of his
biggest campaign contributors — while trying to project an image of
independence from it to get re-elected. But as chairman, he may also
have to make compromises with industry lobbyists to move the
legislation through a chamber in which bankers hold political sway.

Mr. Dodd said he decided to remain chairman after conversations with
the senior committee Republican, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. He
said Mr. Shelby persuaded him that it would be possible to get
bipartisan support for stronger financial regulation despite major
disagreements between even the two senators.

The industry has important allies among Democrats and Republicans on
the banking committee.

Industry lobbyists and colleagues said, for instance, that several
Democrats were likely to oppose the Dodd plan to have one banking
agency, a change that has been advocated by Senator Charles E.
Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of
Virginia.

Mr. Dodd and Mr. Shelby agree generally on some issues — including
their skepticism of a more powerful Federal Reserve, reflecting a view
shared widely among lawmakers. But among their disagreements are
whether to have a new consumer financial protection agency that would
regulate credit cards, mortgages and other loans.

The Dodd plan would reduce the stature of the Federal Reserve in several ways.

The central bank, which has evolved since its creation nearly a
century ago into a powerful banking regulator and has gained even
greater power over the last year, would lose authority over banks, as
well as its ability to regulate mortgages and credit cards.

Mr. Dodd has also rejected the administration's proposal to have the
Fed play the leading role as a so-called "systemic risk" regulator
that examines the connections between regulated and unregulated
companies for trouble spots that could disrupt the markets. That role
would instead be filled by a council of regulators.

(Bowing to political skepticism about the Fed's performance before the
crisis began, the administration's plan also would create a council,
but it would put the Fed in the decisive role.)

The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, leading an agency
threatened by the overhaul, has sought to push back by asserting the
agency's authority over subprime lending and executive pay in recent
days.

In other important respects, the Dodd plan would be similar to the
administration's.

Like the president, Mr. Dodd supports the creation of a new consumer
financial protection agency to both write and enforce new rules
protecting households from credit cards and mortgages with abusive or
deceptive terms.

The legislation would also make it easier for the government to seize
large troubled companies, as it did in the case of the American
International Group. It would give shareholders the right to have
nonbinding votes on the pay of senior executives. And it would impose
tighter oversight of the derivatives market, though how vigorously is
still not clear.

But the biggest difference is over bank consolidation. The issue is an
incendiary one for the politically influential community banks, whose
members are in every congressional district and whose top executives
are often local power brokers.

Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association,
said the consolidation "hasn't worked in other countries that have
tried it and it faces plenty of opposition in Congress. It could be
that this is just an opening position for further negotiations."

The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, has proposed merging two
of the four bank regulatory agencies — the Office of Thrift
Supervision, which oversees savings associations, and the Comptroller
of the Currency, which supervises nationally chartered banks — into
one agency, but he would leave the others untouched.

New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552021,00.html

Americans who slap $1 pricetags on their used possessions at garage
sales or bazaar events risk being slapped with fines of up to $15
million, thanks to a new government campaign.

The "Resale Round-up," launched by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, enforces new limits on lead in children's products and
makes it illegal to sell any items that don't meet those limits or
have been recalled for any other reason.

The strict standards were set in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act after a series of high-profile recalls of Chinese-made
toys.

The standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new
products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well.

"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking
the law, they are putting children's lives at risk," said CPSC
Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their
business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."

In order to comply, stores, flea markets, charities and individuals
selling used goods — in person or online — are expected to consult the
commission's 24-page Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers
(pdf) and its Web site for a breakdown of what they can't sell.

Violators caught selling anything on the enormous list face fines of
up to $100,000 per infraction and up to $15 million for a related
series of infractions.

CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large
companies with serious infractions.

"CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year
history against companies," Wolfson told FOXNews.com. "CPSC is not
seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale
or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not
resell recalled products."

But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction
for families and small resellers.

"Most people having garage sales at this point don't have much anyway,
so to have a fine levied against them is tantamount to harassment,"
Massi told FOXNews.com. "And if you or I asked 100 people about this,
they would never even know the law exists."

Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher
of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an
impact.

"The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be
an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the
law," Mays told FOXNews.com. "Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price,
for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about
2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban —
that amounts to just over one dollar per toy."

When FOXNews.com came to his garage sale, vendor Ilan Broochian said
the same was not the case for his household.

"You fine me in today's economy $1000 dollars and that would hurt me,"
Broochian said. "So, just make the fine bigger to them; don't take
their responsibility and put it on me."

VIDEO: FOXNews.com Visits the Broochians' Garage Sale

"It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on
unsuspecting households," another garage sale organizer, Patti
Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. "I think I speak for many people when I
say that the government spends too much time interfering in the
individual citizen's personal life and this is almost bordering on the
ridiculous ... what if it opens up a Pandora's box of litigation
brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?"

Wolfson says the law may be tough, but it's necessary to keep
consumers — and especially children — safe.

"Many children have choked and died on small parts that have broken
off or been incorporated into toys," Wolfson told FOXNews.com.

He noted that dozens of children have swallowed powerful magnets that
fell out of magnetic toys and have needed open-chest surgery as
result.

"We don't make haphazard decisions about risks here at CPSC," he said.
"So much of what we do here and what this new law aims to achieve is
looking at issues where children have been hurt previously."

But critics say the Resale Round-up is just another example of the
government overstepping its boundaries.

"It's absurd when nanny-state bureaucrats want to regulate things we
buy at mom-and-pop shops or second-hand stores," Wes Benedict,
executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, told
FOXNews.com. "Consumer product safety is best left to a free market
where suppliers can compete based on reputation and track records.
American grown-ups aren't stupid, and they know they need to be
careful about what they buy for their children from complete strangers
at no-name stores."

Toy industry expert and TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne
says the law is well-intended, but it may be taking things too far.

"The overall law I think is awfully broad and doesn't take all of the
science into effect," he told FOXNews.com. "You can't consume lead by
touching something and putting your finger in your mouth. That's not
how it happens. The lead has to be injested and has to be injested in
particles small enough to enter the bloodstream or on a material in
the stomach where it will be digested in the stomach acids and go into
the bloodstream — and that's never happened from toys."

In cases where toys have injured children, Byrne said the injuries
often resulted from misusing the product.

"In virtually all the cases of magnet swallowing these were things
that were swallowed by kids that were below the age grade, or in the
case of the older kids they were pretending to have tongue piercings.
By banning magnets, you're not going to stop that level of play,"
Byrne said.

PHOTOS: Controversial Recalls

"When you bring something into your home there should be an assumption
of risk," he added. "And if you have a child under 3 and you bring in
something age graded for 5 and up – who's responsibility is that? I
think it's the parents'."

And toys aren't the only issue. Byrne said the biggest challenge now
is for all school products.

"If I've got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire
binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting
lead in any amount from something like that is virtually
non-existent," he said. "It's a level of political grandstanding to
say 'we're taking care of everything,' but the science clearly
demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a
child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have
significantly worse health problems than lead."

The Resale Round-up has led some resale stores and charities to stop
accepting children's goods altogether, something President and CEO of
Goodwill Industries Jim Gibbons said has some clients concerned.

"I saw on blogs, consumers saying, 'Don't take away my ability to shop
at Goodwill for children's clothing – this is how I clothe my kids and
get them to school,'" Gibbons told FOXNews.com.

The problem, he said, is every not-for-profit and 'mom and pop thrift
shop' has different capabilities and resources and a broad-brush
approach may leave them unable to provide services.

Still, Gibson said, Goodwill generally has been able to continue
serving its communities, and he believes CPSC is working hard to take
a law "that was probably written in haste" and implement it in an
effective manner.

"They're really committed to common-sense approaches and working in
good faith with at least the social services kind of thrift segment,"
he said. "And we've been working very proactively with them to make
sure that folks at Goodwill are educated, have access to the CPSC
guidelines and are making themselves available for as much training as
CPSC can provide as they try to figure out how to work with this
legislation."

For more information on the Resale Round-up go to www.cspc.gov.

Obama Push for 'World' Regulations

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNRS9zQAgnBQ

Obama Says Financial Regulations Must Be Strengthened Globally
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Nicholas Johnston

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said tougher financial
regulations are needed worldwide to protect consumers, provide
economic stability and prevent future crises.

With the leaders from the Group of 20 nations set to meet next week in
Pittsburgh, Obama said in his weekly address on the radio and Internet
that international cooperation has "stopped our economic freefall."

"We know we still have a lot to do, in conjunction with nations around
the world, to strengthen the rules governing financial markets and
ensure that we never again find ourselves in the precarious situation
we found ourselves in just one year ago," Obama said.

The administration has proposed an overhaul of U.S. financial
regulations including oversight of the systemic risk large financial
institutions pose to the economy, new ways for the government to
dismantle failed companies and a regulator to oversee financial
products for consumers.

Obama reiterated his calls for Congress to act on his regulatory
proposals, which he also made in a speech on Wall Street Sept. 13.

"As I told leaders of our financial community in New York City earlier
this week, a return to normalcy can't breed complacency," Obama said
in today's address. "Our government needs to fundamentally reform the
rules governing financial firms and markets to meet the challenges of
the 21st century."

Oversight for Consumers

Obama said a central element to this regulatory overhaul is a new
agency to oversee consumer products, including mortgages and credit
cards.

"We need clear rules, clearly enforced. And that's what this agency
will do," Obama said.

Obama said lobbyists for financial institutions are already fighting
against new regulations.

"We cannot let the narrow interests of a few come before the interests
of all of us," Obama said. "We cannot forget how close we came to the
brink, and perpetuate the broken system and breakdown of
responsibility that made it possible."

In the Republican address, North Carolina Representative Sue Myrick
focused on Obama's health-care proposals, which are being debated in
Congress. She said the plan being offered by Obama and congressional
Democrats would lead to government-run insurance and that would mean
delays in care.

Access to Care

"Every family that confronts a serious illness should have access to
the highest-quality care at the lowest possible cost, with no delays,"
Myrick said.

Obama has said he favors a government-run insurance program to compete
with private insurers. While he has suggested he wouldn't make it a
requirement as part of final legislation, other Democrats including
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have said it must be part of
any bill.

"Replacing your current health care with a government-run system is
not the answer," Myrick said.

Myrick also said the health-care proposals would lead to tax increases
on small businesses that would lead to the elimination of more than
1.6 million jobs.

"This is the worst possible time to be imposing new, job- killing
taxes," Myrick said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington
at Njohnston3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 19, 2009 06:00 EDT

Swiss Gun Debate

Staring down the barrel of Swiss gun traditions

Switzerland is grappling with a question and it’s a loaded one: should its citizens be allowed to keep military rifles at home? The shooting traditions are deep-rooted in this country where basic military training is mandatory and so is storing weapons at home. It’s estimated that over 500,000 military rifles are kept in Swiss cellars and cupboards. WRS video journalist Amy Wong went to the Tiro Federale in Campagna (also called the Feldschiessen in German or Tir fédéral en campagne in French) the largest shooting festival in the world, to witness this 83-year-old tradition.

— Amy Wong, World Radio Switzerland

This is a SIG 550. It’s designed to destroy anything standing within its 400 m trajectory. And there are over 500 thousand of them kept Swiss homes.

Guns and shooting are a strong Swiss tradition. Basic military training is mandatory for young men, and afterwards they’re required to keep their weapon at home.

Marc Heim is the Ticino representative for the lobby group ProTell.

MARC HEIM: This was my father’s military rifle and of course he got to keep it when he was finished. I have my grandfather’s military rifle hanging on the office wall. This was mine when I did service. It’s quite an old one it was introduced in 1957 and used until 1990. And this is my son’s. It’s the current model. That’s what’s being used today. That’s what we’ll be using the shoot the Feldschiessen today.

The Feldschessen, or Tiro Federale in Campagna as it’s known in these parts is an annual Swiss event and the largest shooting festival in the world. Roughly 200 thousand people come out to target practice all across the country. ammunition is provided by the government.

Heim goes regularly to this range, and it’s often a family affair.

HEIM: It was organized by the government to have a very high state of readiness for the Swiss military and population. The target has always been that within 24 to 48 hours, Switzerland could mobilize a pretty large army. I mean, even by European standards.

But it wasn’t the militia that sparked Heim’s interest in guns as young man. It was an unassuming trip to a holocaust museum.

HEIM: I was going through all the exhibits and the soaps and the lampshades made of people’s skin, and while I was looking, I heard a funny noise, and there was an old woman, maybe two metres from me. She was trying not to cry. She was sort of sobbing very quietly. She was sort of holding it back. If she had been a few more meters away I wouldn’t have heard her. And that’s when it all hit me. I promised myself I will never be in her situation. I would want to be free and never in a situation where they could just march us off to ovens or prisons.or just take away our freedom.

HEIM: The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself, and if you don’t have the tools to do that then you are at the mercy of anyone who wants to put you away. And the tools for that are guns.

However, not everyone sees guns the same way.
While gun crime is relatively low in Switzerland, more than 300 people a year are killed military rifles, the majority of them suicides. Recently efforts for more regulation have been picking up. And a certain faction of people want military rifles stored in army barracks, rather than peoples cellars.

Tobias Schnebli is an activist with the Group for Switzerland without an Army.

TOBIAS SCHNEBLI: You do have studies that show that having firearms so easily available in every home does augment cases of abuse of this. Availability of firearms and military firearms in Swiss homes is one part of the problem. It’s not the whole problem that’s for sure, but there is no military justification for this tradition to be kept when we see the keeping of this tradition does facilitate these cases of abuse. Every case of abuse is a case too much.

HEIM: In the case of a son who kills himself, I know one. I cannot imagine anything worse happening. But it has nothing to do with the guns. It’s a totally separate issue. If he had killed himself with a knife, what would you do with knives? If he jumped out a window, would you close up all the windows? It has no connection at all with guns.

The initiative to ban guns will likely go to a national vote in a couple of years.

Amy Wong, World Radio Switzerland, in Comano.

Photos

What do you think about a Constitutional Convention?

It's a scary prospect, since the entire constitution could be
changed...What do you think?

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_f285f474-a39f-11de-9a25-001cc4c002e0.html

The United States faces bankruptcy, as average Americans protest
furiously in tea parties and town hall meetings. Yet Congress and the
administration press ahead with plans spend trillions that they don't
have.

The system is broken. Washington is unresponsive. Politicians use your
money to buy votes through government handouts. The debt piles higher
and higher. Health insurance is important, but the issue pales by
comparison to economic survival.

What Americans fear is utter ruin and what could come in its wake -
widespread poverty, chaos and government control. Freedom itself
depends upon economic security.

Make no mistake: America is teetering on the brink of an abyss, and
that knot in your stomach is shared by millions.

The answer is to get our financial house in order, starting with the
elimination of deficit spending and the balancing of the federal
budget.

But the discipline to do this will not come from President Obama, nor
from Congress, which is a lost cause where fiscal restraint is
concerned. Congress seems capable only of bleeding the middle class
while authorizing greater debt. Both political parties are to blame,
but the so-called "progressives" who now hold power will certainly
never be the authors of a new fiscal discipline. They will not lead us
out of the hole. They are, in fact, aiming for something else.

Congress's record of economic management - especially lately - is the
very definition of irresponsibility. Worse than useless for decades,
Congress has now become a danger. Do not look there for answers; you
won't find them.

States have the power

But if not Congress, who? Who can rescue America from what appears to
be a fatal slide into insolvency?

Look to the states. They've always had the power to assert their will
through a mechanism of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers put
in place for just such an emergency. That mechanism, found in Article
V, has never been used, but it gives states all of the necessary power
to put the nation back on sound footing - economically, and in any
other way that "We the People" see fit.

It's called a constitutional convention, and its purpose is to amend
the Constitution to impose the will of the people when the

system breaks down. Such a convention bypasses Congress entirely. It
is initiated by the states alone. They can force the federal
government to balance the budget in the way they choose, not by
raising taxes.

A vote of two-thirds of the states (34) triggers a convention - in
this case, a convention could be called for the sole purpose of
debating and passing a balanced budget amendment. If three-fourths of
the states (38) subsequently debate and agree to an amendment, that
amendment becomes part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the
land.

Never in the history of this country has fiscal responsibility been
more important. The annual federal budget deficit hit $1.38 trillion
in August, with a month left to go in the fiscal year. That's $1
trillion higher than any year in history. And it's on top of a total
federal debt of $11.6 trillion, which will rise to $13 trillion or
more by 2013 and continue to soar.

The only way to stay solvent will be to raise taxes to crushing
levels, to suffer ruinous inflation or to default on the debt - which
is genuine bankruptcy.

Look back at history, and you'll find that such financial catastrophes
as America faces today have ruined more nations than wars or natural
disasters ever could.

Many Americans now see that the well-being, even the survival, of the
nation are at stake in the financial decisions being made today. That
is why 80 percent of America rates the economy as poor and a majority
are anxious about making ends meet, according to a new Associated
Press-GfK poll. That's why "tea parties" express growing frustration
all over the country and why, at tumultuous town hall meetings, people
grill their elected officials.

People are fearful, and rightfully so.

On Saturday, crowds filled Washington to protest runaway government
spending. Outside observers estimated that between 1 and 2 million
people appeared. Even if the number was a fourth that, it's still huge
- made more staggering by the fact that these were ordinary Americans
who don't normally protest. There was no big organization at work, no
media hype. Yet they showed up to decry irresponsible spending.

And for every person who attended, there were countless counterparts
at home who feel the same way. That march was just the smoke from a
burning fuse. The powder keg is what was once known as the Silent
Majority, people from the mainstream who rose to stop the Vietnam war
and then went back into dormancy.

Now the Silent Majority is beginning to speak again. Anger is building
among millions of ordinary Americans. And when the American people get
mad - as tyrants from George III through Saddam Hussein discovered too
late - watch out.

Path to fiscal health

Fiscal restraint must be imposed on the federal government now for the
good of the country, and the states have the power to impose it. We
may not get another chance. The worst possible course is to continue
down the path of government handouts and bailouts that only increase
debt and sap our freedoms.

Step 1 on the responsible path is to require a balanced federal budget
every year.

Sadly, presidents and Congresses of both parties have failed to stem
the flow of red ink. And there is nothing to indicate that either
party is serious about cutting back on spending now. The states need
to send a message in the most forceful of terms, through our greatest
bulwark of liberty and effective government, the Constitution of the
United States.

Pass a balanced budget amendment by a vote of the states, and cut
Congress out. The states have the power to do this.

Of course, a balanced budget amendment has been discussed in academic
circles before. Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have been
bringing it up since 1936. In 1982, one version of the amendment was
approved in the Senate but failed in the House. In 1995, the House
OK'd a version, but it was defeated in the Senate. Washington
politicians, it seems, just want to keep the gravy train rolling.

Fortunately, the Constitution clearly empowers the people themselves
(working through their states) to force amendments. The Constitution
gives the people the power to call a new convention, like the one in
1787 and to dictate new rules.

It's been tried before

Though this power is little known now, hundreds of petitions have been
passed by legislatures over the years. And they have worked
indirectly. In the early 20th Century, for example, 30 state
legislatures - one shy of what was then needed - passed petitions
calling for a convention for the direct election of senators. Feeling
the heat, Congress responded by passing the 17th Amendment for that
purpose, and the states subsequently ratified it.

This time, a convention could be called to consider a balanced budget amendment.

In the early 1980s, 32 states passed resolutions calling for a
balanced budget amendment. That's just two short of the 34 needed to
call a convention. Both measures stalled there, however.

So why try it now? Because the situation is dire. The political mood
is favorable. The stars have aligned.

On Oct. 1, 1982, when calls for a balanced budget narrowly failed, the
total debt amassed by the U.S. in more than 200 years was $1.1
trillion. That's less than the debt the government piled up in the
first nine months of this fiscal year. In other words, the idea of a
convention nearly triumphed when the debt was a fraction of what it is
now.

But what worried people then terrifies them today. The time is ripe.
It is time for the states to yank Congress's chain.

The biggest bogeyman of a new constitutional convention is the fear -
unfounded, in our view - that a new convention could get out of
control and end with a total rewrite of the Constitution. We have more
faith in Americans than that. You won't get a three-fourths vote of
approval if wild shenanigans are attempted with our most precious
charter.

Still, any call for a convention must make clear that the purpose is
solely to consider a balanced budget amendment, nothing else.

Second, any proposed amendment must provide a clear basis upon which
budgeting is done, directly limiting deficits while allowing for
genuine emergencies.

Here's a rough draft of what a balanced budget amendment might look like:

"Except in a case of national emergency, Congress shall not budget for
a given year an amount greater than the total revenues actually
collected in the previous year. Congress may approve a budget deficit
in time of national emergency, if a state of emergency is first
declared by the President and if Congress concurs by resolution of
three-fourths of each House; but no budget deficit shall exceed 10
percent of the previous year's actual revenue."

Obligation of Congress

Americans worried about the nation's financial solvency should
immediately begin to push their state legislators toward a
constitutional convention. Once 34 states are on board, Congress is
obliged to call a convention, and would set the dates.

To be sure, there are unknowns, as it's never been done before. Yet
that fact is also energizing. A new convention would be one of the
biggest events in American political history. There would be intense
media and public scrutiny, which is all to the good. Some of
Congress's worst offenses happen when the public isn't paying
attention, or when lawmakers can slip a profitable little clause into
a huge piece of legislation. That could not happen here, not with so
much in the spotlight.

Delegates would be selected from every state. The convention would
meet and settle into the hard work of debate, drafting, compromise and
final passage.

The Constitution has checks and balances for everything, even the
expression of the people's will, and that principle would apply here.
Any approved amendment would go back to Congress, which would then
propose a mode of ratification - a vote of state legislatures, for
example, or state ratifying conventions.

In all but one previous case, proposed amendments have gone to the
state legislatures for ratification. That makes sense, as state
lawmakers are close to the people. Alternatively, Congress could send
the proposed amendment to specially convened ratifying conventions in
the states - like those that followed the original constititutional
convention of 1787. State ratifying conventions were used in the case
of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, and that mode could
be used again.

Either choice amounts to a mere detail that won't matter much. If
there's enough energy to create a balanced budget amendment in the
first place, there will be no resistance to ratification.

This entire process is testimony to the genius of the Founders. The
convention process allows the people, acting through the states, to
impose their will on the national government.

There has never been a more important time for Americans to assert themselves.

The idea is not utterly devoid of risk; but neither is the
continuation of reckless, irresponsible government spending. We live
in scary times, but don't forget that those who attended the
convention in Philadelphia in 1787 had never created a nation before;
yet they moved forward. Like them, we put our trust in the people.
Aroused and alarmed, they will do the right thing.

The time has come for the people to speak.

From Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress ... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds
of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions
in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification
may be proposed by the Congress.

Posted in Editorial on Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:30 am Updated: 9:49 am.

Campaign Update: Eagar Wins Logan Debate

I haven't confirmed who 'called' the win in this debate. But sounds
like she did a good job. Wish I could have seen it.

Campaign Update: Eagar Wins Logan Debate
Share
Today at 9:00am
Debate News Release

LOGAN, UTAH, Thursday, September 10, 2009. Cherilyn Eagar, Republican
candidate for the United States Senate, won the first U.S. Senate
debate of the season held on Wednesday night at Willow Park in Logan,
Utah. In addition to Eagar, Republican challengers Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff, James Williams and Democrat Sam Granato were in
attendance. All of the candidates present at the debate highlighted
the absence of Utah's incumbent Senator Bob Bennett who was a
noticeable no-show at the debate.

A highlight of the debate was when Eagar brought to the crowd's
attention that the third-term incumbent Attorney General opposed the
amendment making English Utah's official language, as well as a bill
to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "What was he doing at
a pro-amnesty rally using Cesar Chavez's – and Barack Obama's words –
'Si se puede?" (Yes, we can.)

Although the Attorney General denied having ever attended any
pro-amnesty rally, Eagar cited reports in the Deseret News and has
witnesses who were in attendance at two separate events.
Eagar said, "If I were the Attorney General, I would never have stood
on the stage next to Leftist Rocky Anderson. I would never have said
that I have 'a Latino heart.' We have a rich tapestry in America. I
have an 'American heart.' We are not hyphenated-Americans."

The crowd chuckled when Eagar quipped, "He might consider returning
that award from Mexican President Vincente Fox."

Eagar said she is counting on the support of the same immigration
proponents that helped Jason Chaffetz win his election. "The Americans
for Better Immigration give our incumbent Senator a D+ rating. If they
could rate our incumbent Attorney General, he would probably get a D."
"What I liked about Ms. Eagar is that she was so positive and spoke
strongly on the issues," said Mike Stamp of Logan.

She also put the Attorney General on the defensive with her question
about his past opposition to Proposition 3, Utah's marriage amendment,
which he attacked back in 2003 as "bad law." The Attorney General
showed his support of hate crimes legislation and his opposition to
the marriage amendment by attending a homosexual fundraiser.

Eagar also confronted the Attorney General with the fact that he
refused to defend State Rep. Carl Wimmer's state abortion ban. He
rejected an offer for free defense, forcing Wimmer to abandon the bill
and set up a defense fund instead.

Cherilyn Eagar and her husband Randy are co-owners of WebsTarget, a
real estate Internet marketing company. As a lifelong conservative
volunteer activist, this race is her second run for public office. She
describes herself as a common sense conservative and Reagan Republican
running on the constitutional conservative principles of fiscal
restraint, limited government, free market solutions, energy
independence and a strong national defense.

Constitution Day Speeches in Lehi, Tomorrow Night

Announcing a new Meetup for Utah County We Surround Them Meetup!

What: Constitution Day Celebration

When: September 19, 2009 7:00 PM

Where:
Lehi Veterans Memorial Building
55 N Center Street
Lehi, UT 84043

Happy Constitution Day!

The Freedom Forum and Latterday Conservative.com are teaming up and
putting on the following event:

In commemoration of Constitution Day, we will be honored to hear from two
excellent Constitutional scholars...

Gary Alder will speak on: "The Structure of the Constitution Protects Us
from Tyranny"

Ken Bowers will speak on "The Miracle Called America"

Gary Alder has been teaching courses on the Constitution for several years,
including a course he developed titled "The American Constitutional
Paradigm". You can learn more about Gary on his website: freedomformula.us.
Gary Alder is also a regular co-host on the blog talk radio show "March of
Liberty".

Ken Bowers is the author of "Hiding in Plain Sight" and "Beneath the Tide".
He worked closely with W. Cleon Skousen and his library of extensive
writings and documents during the years before Skousen's death. Ken Bowers
is a writer online for the Salt Lake Examiner.

This is sure to be a great event, very educational and inspirational! Please
invite your friends, family, neighbors and others to join us is
commemorating and learning about the United States Constitution and the
Miracle Called America.

Learn more here:
http://www.meetup.com/utahcounty/calendar/11396899/