Chris Christie nails the administration for being “mindless drones".

Of course, anyone who has worked with the federal government on anything knows this is how government operates. And the bigger government gets, the more people realize that government is the problem. And playing musical chairs, putting in smart people instead of dumb people, Rs instead of Ds, or anything like that isn’t going to solve anything. Returning power to the people, or in this case to local governments, is the only solution.

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson attacks the Tea Party today in his Washington Post column. He claims that Republicans would do well to separate themselves from Tea Party elements, especially ones that exhibit “constitutionalism", “nativist impulse", and “political violence” in response to inferred breaches of power.

Gerson is a gifted writer with conservative and small-government tendencies. However, columns like this show that he is part of what Rasmussen calls “the political class” rather than the mainstream public.

On the question of political violence, Gerson is absolutely correct. But he connects violence with the Tea Party based on a single tongue-in-cheek comment made by one Republican candidate (Sharron Angle’s comment that, “If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” By and large, Tea Party rallies have been peaceful, disinflammatory, and exceedingly tidy. More so than left-wing rallies, which are typified by disrespect for the law and litter.

On the question of immigration, Gerson is playing typical Democratic identity politics. Tancredo’s rants are reprehensible. And the movement to end birthright citizenship is an unprincipled, band-aid solution. But the other policy positions taken by Tea Party candidates, favoring better immigration enforcement and taking a stand against the Ground Zero mosque, are largely positive for the country. Furthermore, they are popular.

But it is the constitutional question where he has it all wrong. Here is what he says:

First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional? This seems to be the unguarded view of Colorado Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and other Tea Party advocates of “constitutionalism.” It reflects a conviction that the federal government has only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution – which doesn’t mention retirement insurance or health care.

This view is logically consistent – as well as historically uninformed, morally irresponsible and politically disastrous. The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, granted broad power to the federal government to impose taxes and spend funds to “provide for . . . the general welfare” – at least if Alexander Hamilton and a number of Supreme Court rulings are to be believed. In practice, Social Security abolition would push perhaps 13 million elderly Americans into destitution, blurring the line between conservative idealism and Social Darwinism.

As I have argued in an earlier post, the general welfare clause is subordinate to the power to tax. The Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to “provide for … the general welfare"; it says Congress has the power to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. And it says nothing about “spend funds” to provide for the general welfare; that is a shameless and reprehensible bit of Constitutional libel on Gerson’s part.

Of course “a number of Supreme Court rulings” have stated otherwise (Alexander Hamilton’s opinion is irrelevant here), or else we wouldn’t have a $107 Trillion liability parked on our collective balance sheet. The point is that they did so as a matter of convenience and judicial activism.

Gerson’s argument fails to point out that just because Ken Buck and other Tea Party candidates believe that these programs are unconstitutional does not mean that they want to end or even dislike the programs. It is beyond dispute that a constitutional amendment to enumerate the powers that provide for these programs would pass easily, despite the 2/3 and 3/4 hurdles. Perhaps a way to address the issue is to sponsor a constitutional amendment in Congress that specifically adds these to the enumerated powers.

The greater problem is that the slope has become so slippery that government now acts without regard to constitutionality. Many Republicans give lip service to the 10th Amendment; how is this defensible unless one can claim that no programs under un-enumerated powers are constitutional? (Oh, boy, some lefty’s going to use that against us). Even if many popular programs were found to be unconstitutional, the unwinding of some of them could take decades and could be done without affecting those who have (rightly) grown to expect the benefits; others could simply be made constitutional by amendment.

But the intent is not to attack current programs; it is to put a Congressional brake on the creation of new programs that are clearly not under enumerated powers, rather than leave this job to the Supreme Court, which is rather hampered by precedent. Case in point is the recently passed health reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Protecting Social Security and Medicare is not inconsistent with the recognition that future entitlements are to be avoided. Just because a family does not want (or can not afford) more children doesn’t mean they don’t love the ones they have.

Perhaps Gerson is trying to protect Republicans from the inevitable demagoguery that would (will? does?) accompany any discussion of the constitutionality of these programs. To be sure, explaining the issue as I have in the last two paragraphs would pass over some voters whose attention span can’t get farther than the predictable “Republicans hate Social Security” response from Democrats. But the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect us from an all-powerful government and permit the citizens (not the courts, not Alexander Hamiltion) to grant more powers only after careful consideration and agreement that surpasses majority rule. We have been fighting this battle in earnest for about seventy-five years and are generally losing it because of the acquiescence of political expedients like Gerson.

There appears no positive function or endeavor of human existence beyond the reach of government power and its insidious appeal to either the “general welfare” clause or the “interstate commerce” clause. And yet a plain reading of the law says that each power must be enumerated. After years of endless aggravation and taxation under the boot of a well-heeled state, the public may be finally ready to read more than four words and indulge a constitutional argument.

***

One more thing: Gerson also says that “Tea Party populism … is inconsistent with religious teaching on government’s responsibility to seek the common good and to care for the weak.” WTF? First of all, as any Democrat will tell you, don’t force your religion on me (or anyone else). Secondly, no religion (except maybe Judaism) says it is the government’s responsibility. And that makes all the difference.