send to a friend | print | comment
Breaking the contract
by Peg Luksik
In every country, there is a relationship between the citizens and the state. The nature of that relationship determines whether the citizens are free or the state is a tyranny.
It was a break in the citizen/state relationship that caused the Revolution that created America. The Declaration not only explained how the relationship had been broken, it explained what a proper relationship should be. It said that citizens had endowed rights and the reason those citizens created the government was to protect those rights. So the government was an entity “contracted” by the citizens.
Most important contracts between parties are written down so everyone is clear on the terms and conditions. Our mortgage, car loan, and employment are usually defined in carefully worded documents. The documents lay out what each side is responsible to give or do for the other, and what duties each side must perform to receive the designated compensation.
The contract between the citizen and the government in America was written down and formally agreed to. We know that contract as the U.S. Constitution. It clearly lays out the duties and rights of each side of the citizen/state relationship.
In the contract, the citizen agrees to follow the laws, be loyal, and ensure that the government gets the funds it needs. The government agrees to provide a safe and stable environment in which the citizens can live their lives. The specific tasks the government must complete to provide that environment are even listed in the words of the agreement, as are limits to the authority of the government.
A short description of the agreement might say that the government is the fence around the nation, so citizens living within the nation can build their lives and their communities.
As long as both sides honored the contract, America thrived.
But today, the contract is broken.
The federal government does not want to be the fence around the country. It does not want to be limited in its scope or its authority. And as it expands, it requires ever larger amounts of revenue.
That revenue comes from the citizen.
The sad reality is that the overwhelming majority of America’s citizens do not have an accurate idea of how much revenue they are supplying to a state that has violated its contract with them. Most of us will be able to say how large our refund will be without realizing that getting a refund means that we have given the government an interest-free loan for some portion of the previous year.
It would be a challenging exercise of each American to actually calculate how much revenue moved from their bank accounts to the bank accounts of the federal government in 2009. And if we were to complete the exercise, it would be a natural response to focus on the revenue.
Focusing there would also be a mistake. The amount of revenue the federal government is pulling from its citizens is always related to how closely the government is following the terms of its contract with those citizens.
If we truly want to get control of the spending in Washington, we must learn what the contract says by reading the Constitution. And then in this election year, we must remove those officials who are not abiding by the terms of our Constitutional contract and replace them with people who will insist on enforcing the contract that built the most free and most prosperous nation on earth.
The writer is a Republican candidate for Senate.
April 14, 2010 at 10:30 am
Tags: Peg Luksik
Leave a Reply
pa2012.com blogs
Red in a Sea of Blue
Purple in Pennsylvania
The Latest from @pa2012 news
More UpdatesStay connected with pa2012.com:
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
David Diano
Apr 14th, 2010
I hope Peggy opposes all those right-wingers who would have a religious litmus test for office. (It’s in the Constitution.)
Adam
Apr 14th, 2010
Wow, another conservative decrying spending without proposing one actual budget cut. Voters deserve more than generalities, Peg.
huw
Apr 14th, 2010
Attention Peg Lusik – YOU ARE RUNNING FOR SENATE!
Why don’t you tell us why we should elect you, not why we should get rid of everyone else.
Lee Levan
Apr 14th, 2010
If you actually wanted to understand the constitution, Peg, you’d do more than read it. You’d study history. You’d study the debates at the constututional convention meetings. You’d analyze various interpretations. You’d recognize that the founding fathers couldn’t and didn’t try to answer every question which would arise in the future, simply because it was not possible to know the future. You’d concede that they provided for a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution as circumstances changed, as they have over the past nearly 225 years since it was adapted.
But it’s so much easier to ignore debate and actually thinking about those difficult things and just spout simplistic, meaningless platitudes as you did. Frankly, it’s painfully obvious that you don’t even know the difference between policy decisions and constitutional issues.
By the way, it’s also in the constitution that the candidate who gets the most electoral votes becomes the president. And that the president gets to make some decisions. Like it or not, Obama is our current president; he’s a moderate; and he’s going to be reelected in 2012. Or are you a birther, too?
Rob
Apr 15th, 2010
I think that she is well suited to be bishop of some church. But as a secular political candidate, she is a travesty. We do need sensible people to get rid of the idiots in DC who just want to keep increasing our taxes as part of social experiments and to spend money on earmarks to keep getting themselves reelected (as in Murtha and Specter). But Luksik is not that person. Oh what I would give for true conservatives who will pare back the government, allow social programs to be handled solely at the state and local levels, and not get involved in issues should be left to private religious beliefs!
TB
Apr 15th, 2010
The fact that this woman continues to have a public platform from which to address the people of the Commonwealth is an embarrassment to the Commonwealth’s political class. Someone please make arrangements for this wind bag to live out her days in a retirement home in some God foresaken place such as Potter County.
DaveB
May 13th, 2010
Wow, quite a few vicious attacks (ad-hominem and ill-informed). I guess I’ll just go down the line.
Peg seems to be opposed to any taxation in excess of that which is needed to uphold the 17 enumerated powers the Constituion grants to our federal government. Getting back to those prinicples implies quite a large decrease in the budget as well as spending…wouldn’t you think?
Why should we elect her? Based on just this one article it would appear she has a firmer grasp of her position-to-be then most “representatives” that have been in DC for the last 40 years or so.
I’ve read the dialouge during the ratification. I’ve read the federalist papers. The only interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning is a strict interpretation (grab a dictionary from that time period if you get confused). If the general welfare clause or interstate commerce clause are meant to be read to give the federal government control over every aspect of our lives why enumerate the specific powers at all? Why have a 9th or 10th amendment after reitierating the individuals soveriegn rights? Of course the founders couldn’t anticipate the future needs of the country, thats why they allowed for ammending the rule of law. Please point me towards the amendment that established a department of education, authorizes social security or healthcare mandates. If you remember what you were taught in the 6th grade our government is designed with three EQUAL branches of government, Executive, Legislative & Judicial. The Judicial is not higher than the other two, they are equal in power. Crack a history book to find examples of situations when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of something and the President disregarded that branches decision. The supreme courts job is to ENFORCE the law, not legislate from the bench. The president is commander-in-chief, he gets to rule the military at times of war. Since we are in an unending, undeclared war against a tactic that can never surrender or be defeated the presidents now wield this role in perpetuity. And I don’t even know what a moderate is but based on Obama’s actions it would appear to be a more articulate version of whatever George W. Bush was. The rest of your argument is just silly, childish attacks, not worth comment.
I’m not sure what Rob finds un-conservative about Peg?
And another ignorant comment with no substansial issues raised.
For me, I think she looks like a good candidate compared to what else is being offered up and I’m giving her my vote. I will be disappointed if there is no follow through behind her rhetoric but I respect and agree with her view of American government. Having that is the first step to getting this country back on track.
Freedom, Prosperity & Peace.
Dave Bowman