Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

America’s Ruling Class

August 10, 2010

Take a look at this article by Angelo Codevilla.  It’s a great discussion of the divide between America’s “Ruling” and “Country” classes.

The ruling class is loath to recognize any limits to its power.  Here are a couple of vivid examples.  First, courtesy of HotAir, we have Pete Stark (D-CA), aka Pete Stark-raving-mad, admitting that he sees no limits to the power of the feds to run our lives.  What is their justification?  Well, it’s the concept of “social costs.”  Here we can see Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute promoting this view. It can be argued that there are social costs to almost any human activity. If that is truly the case, what are the limits of government action and who sets these limits?

Don’t cry for me, America

April 27, 2010

Found this PowerPoint presentation courtesy of KOA’s Mike Rosen.  I’ve converted it to video to make it web-friendly.

Are we following in Argentina’s footsteps?

Reflections on the Tax Day Tea Party

April 17, 2010

While attending the Fort Collins TDTP, one of the speakers mentioned the movie I.O.U.S.A. (view the short version here).  After watching this, it is shocking how much has changed since the film was made (2007 or  2008).  The deficits the movie predicts to occur in the 2030s now appear to be arriving around 2020.  This is not good news.

While many tea party supporters would like to see smaller government and lower taxes, history tells us it simply is not going to happen short of a catastrophic event that breaks the link between the governments at all levels and those dependent on the dole.

Here are options on the table for paying for government programs, ranked in descending order of political palatability (as I see it):

  1. Borrowing
  2. Tax increases
  3. Cutting services
  4. Cutting benefits

Let’s look at these separately.

(more…)

“I don’t worry about the Constitution”

April 2, 2010

Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) is the epitome of a progressive.  This is what to expect as we become a nation of men, not a nation of laws.

Letter to the Coloradoan

March 24, 2010

Update: The Coloradoan did publish the letter on Saturday, Mar 27.  Kinda fun.  I notice most of the commenters think that debate amounts to hurling insults back and forth.

Here is a letter I sent off to our local paper, the Fort Collins Coloradoan, in response to Betsy Markey’s rationale for her ‘yes’ vote on the health care bill.  Now to see if they’ll print it!

Kudos for Betsy Markey for explaining her ‘yes’ vote for the health care bills in spite of the overwhelming opposition to the legislation within her district.  Unfortunately, her explanation falls short on several counts. Let’s examine a few of her claims. (more…)

My letter to Rep. Markey

March 18, 2010

The healthcare reconciliation bill may be coming up for a vote soon. You have shown your true colors by voting for the Slaughter Strategy: You believe the ends justify the means. I urge you to vote ‘no’ on the reconciliation bill.

The sleights-of-hand, bribes and backroom deals used to push Obamacare through are an affront to the rule of law. Anyone, including you, who votes for such trash deserves to be tarred and feathered.

If you cared to read history, from the days of the French Revolution all top-down and articulated reason-driven programs such as Obamacare have been abject failures, leading to widespread misery and bloodshed. The untold millions killed in the name of ‘caring for the People’ should be all the incentive needed to vote against this monstrosity.

A ‘yes’ vote for Obamacare will serve to condemn our fellow citizens and their descendants to a life of servitude and penury, if not extermination.  Their blood will be on *your* hands.  Vote ‘NO’!

Betsy Markey – A Profile in Cowardice

March 12, 2010

The Democrat’s panicked push for healthcare “reform” has deteriorated to the point of using the “Slaughter Strategy” where the House will deem that the Senate bill as passed without an actual vote by the House.  This is most likely an unconstitutional act and should cause revulsion in anyone who values the rule of law.  Once again, we have a demonstration of the left’s philosophy of ‘the ends justify the means.’

Now look at Betsy Markey.  It would be nice to hear her position on the Senate bill, but she surely won’t take one without kissing Speaker Pelosi’s ring and getting her blessing.  However, it is illuminating that Markey has nothing to say on the  process of these healthcare shenanigans.  What a craven parasite.

Have a 401(k)? Watch out!

March 12, 2010

Not surprisingly, the Feds are looking at ways of getting their fingers into your 401(k) retirement savings.  The Treasury is proposing to take money from 401(k) accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities paying a 3% return.  Look here and here for more discussion.  It is absolutely astounding how little play a proposal like this gets in the major media.

Negative vs. Positive Rights

March 12, 2010

The US Constitution was designed to create a republic with a weak central government and strong member states.  The Bill of Rights reflects this principle quite well, listing rights that the citizens inherently possess and the government cannot infringe upon.  Barack Obama has described the Constitution as having a “blind spot” in that it doesn’t specify the things that government must do for the citizens.  Look at FDR’s Second Bill of Rights for an example of what Obama would like the government to supply to the citizens.  These are confiscatory or “positive” rights that require the redistribution of the fruits of the labor, i.e. property, of one party to another party deemed to have a deficit of the same fruits.  Judge Andrew Napolitano gives us great explanation here:

Take housing as an example.  The negative right view of housing that we’re all familiar with is that you have option of finding housing proportionate to your willingness and ability to pay.  This can mean purchasing, renting, staying with family or living under a bridge.  A positive right to housing means that the government is obligated to provide you housing.  How is this to be accomplished?  How about things like electricity, water, natural gas and septic, which are all needed to make your government-supplied dwelling livable?

A system such as this would require a government body to weigh all the various and ever-changing needs of the people that come before it to demand housing.  Think about this: Once you have obtained your new pad, what is to prevent the commissars from deciding that some other family has a greater need for your house than you do and that you must decamp for another ‘home’ deemed more appropriate for your situation?

Liberty and freedom cannot survive such a regime.

Another aspect of health insurance costs

March 6, 2010

Since the health care debate is still raging, one thing that gets overlooked are the effects of state-mandated coverages.  In Colorado there are 46 mandates, according to “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007,” which adds as much as 50% to the cost of basic health care.  As a single male, it seems rather strange to be forced to have coverage for maternity.  This article discusses several aspects of the problems created by these mandates.

This is one more example of what happens when government meddling occurs and the ‘concentrated interest’ vs. ‘diffused costs’ dynamic takes over.