The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.

by Charley Reese (probably written between 1971 and 2006)
(underscores added for emphasis)

Charley Reese doesn’t pull punches. Mr. Reese wrote for the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper between 1971 and 2006 when he retired and began his syndicated column which ran until August 2008.

When I read this column (included below) sent in by a fan of Responsibility Redefined, I was struck by Mr. Reese’s repeated “they want it” quoted and underscored above. I teach clients all the time that what we get today is related to what we created, chose, or attracted yesterday. In other words, we really do get what we want, whether we believe it or not. And now there is ample evidence about how responsibility works in the mind to support this point of view.

I don’t mean to politicize this blog or the Responsibility Redefined message. So regardless of your political persuasion, please read and enjoy Charlie Reese’s essay. While it is making the rounds now right now, it was probably written in the 1980’s due to the reference about Marines in Lebanon. I was surprised this morning that I could not find an exact publication date. Perhaps you can pin it down. If you do, please let me know.

THE 545 PEOPLE

RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL

OF AMERICA’S WOES

By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don’t you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O’Neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper

More on Charley Reese

Charley Reese on wikipedia

Charley Reese archives

Popularity: 7% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Related Posts

Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog and use the following URL as a trackback (copy and paste it!):
http://www.christopheravery.com/blog/the-545-people-responsible-for-all-of-us-woes/trackback/

Comments made

1.
On October 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am, Andra Wisian said:

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for the great variety of topics on your Blog. I did a bit of research and found that the article you cited today may date to 2004 from a piece written by Reese for Orlando Sentinel. Link:
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=418141
Original title “AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE”

Great way to engage folks on your website! Thanks for today’s engagement!

Best,
Andra

2.
On October 14th, 2008 at 9:15 am, Christopher Avery said:

Hey thanks Andra, both for your good words and the link you found. That’s a good clue.

Anyone else able to find a more specific reference?

I’m a little surprised the Orlando Sentinel Star doesn’t have a catalog or archive.

3.
On November 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am, Ted said:

I think this dates back originally to the 80’s and has been updated by bloggers on the internet for a while. There is no online archive of all of his collums but quite a few (going back to ~2003) can be found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese-arch.html

4.
On November 5th, 2008 at 12:05 pm, Christopher Avery said:

Thanks Ted. I came to the same conclusion. I appreciate your contribution here.

5.
On April 12th, 2009 at 7:56 am, John said:

Charlie Reese (published March 7, 1995, and recently circulated in email and on blogs) wrote: “We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! ”

As Herculean as it seems, this arduous (and necessary) task of renewal would be simple in comparison to the necessary follow-up task – recruiting, training, organizing, and electing a corps of representatives who would be honest, patriotic, trustworthy, and resistant to corruption – a new Third Party. Then comes the question, with whom should these new candidates agree? Which flavor of “right” and “good government” should they support? Should they be strict-constructionists? Should they come from a particular religious or moral viewpoint, and if so, which one? Should they have military experience? What education should they have? Should each of them have demonstrated their understanding of the difference between policy and operations, between strategy and tactics, and between leadership and micromanagement? Should they have demonstrated their skills in working together to develop a wise decision, and to build a responsible budget to support the decision? Where would we find these untainted but experienced, idealistic statesmen?

It is irresponsible to call for drastic change, until we have built the solution. Previous crises have shown that the US Constitution has framed for us a resilient government that can be changed when enough people build the political will. To accomplish a worthwhile and lasting solution, we need, beginning with renewed civics and leadership training in the public schools, to start building that solution in the next generation of Americans. Anything less strategic and fundamental will merely lead to yet another political and economic debacle, and will create an even worse mess (and 545 more rascals) for the next generation. Change wisely.

Just my $0.02 –

jc

** ** ** **
Link to the original article:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/orlandosentinel/access/77930524.html?dids=77930524:77930524&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+7%2C+1995&author=Charley+Reese+of+The+Sentinel+Staff&pub=Orlando+Sentinel&edition=&startpage=A.8&desc=LOOKING+FOR+SOMEONE+TO+BLAME%3F+CONGRESS+IS+GOOD+PLACE+TO+START

A contemporary comment in a local Texas paper:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=J5gNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r2MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2807,1589130

Mr. Reese has an interesting political point of view, as explained in his Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Reese
Other (prolific) Charley Reese articles, if you have the patience: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8796/reese.html

6.
On July 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, Ken Corbin said:

I wanted to post this article in our local newspaer, “Letters to Editor”. Naturally they are asking if I have permission to do so. Any suggestions in regard to this?

KC

7.
On July 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, Christopher Avery said:

Ken, thanks for your quest. I hope you succeed.

I think you have two choices (but I recommend you do your own research to validate or disprove my opinion), both predicated in copyright law. One choice would be to get permission from the copyright holder. I suggest you use the link to the original article above to start identifying the copyright holder.

The other choice would be to write an original letter citing major chunks of Mr’s Reese’s piece. You’ll have to look up guidelines for how much you can cite without violating copyright.

Good luck!
Christopher

8.
On August 22nd, 2009 at 4:11 am, Richard Mudd said:

This is one of best editorial pieces I have read in a long time. Most of the people in the USA should read this, and then be tested on what they learned.

9.
On August 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am, Christopher Avery said:

Thanks Richard. Well said.

Add a Comment

Read/Agree before Commenting