The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Well I'm certainly glad to see that Congressmen really take seriously their duty to represent the people, aren't you? Oh, wait... I'm thinking of some other group of people. Congressmen have no interest in representing anything but their own interests. To wit: the Senate has refused to take a break (even just for the election year!) from pork-barrel spending. Only a minority of the Republicans would vote with McCain, and of course only three Democrats (not including the presidential candidates, of course) supported the moratorium. It failed by a 71-29 vote.

Which just goes to show that most of the members of Congress only cares about being able to abuse government (taxpayer funded) coffers. Even though Americans are sick of "earmark" spending, members of both parties could care less: they think that having been elected, pork-barrel spending is their right. And to some extent they are correct. This sort of spending has been around forever. However, in recent years the abuse has gotten much, much worth, both in terms of the number of earmarks inserted and the cost to taxpayers. ($200 million to build a bridge in Alaska to an island with a population of 50, anyone?)

And of course, the Senators also wants to end Bush's tax cuts: they just passed a $3 trillion budget by a 212-207 vote. So, let's see. They don't want to give up their taxpayer funded vote buying system and they don't want to prune government spending... So hey, here's an idea! Why not punish the hardworking Americans that pay most of the taxes! That ought to do it! And then, they'll wonder why corporations are taking their jobs to other countries and wealthy people are keeping their money in offshore accounts.

This is not going to end well, people. The government can only get so corrupt before it must either be overthrown or become a totalitarian government. The top percentage of wage earners will only support the rest of the people so long before they either leave, or stop working (unless, of course, the government forces them to stay and to work, which isn't impossible). Sadly, most people don't care enough even to pay attention, much less to try to do something about it. I can only hope there are enough people left who do care to stop politicians from ruining this country.

Here's the link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337769,00.html.

Here's a link to learn about some of those wonderful, indispensable earmarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY2dOJi41SI&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/.

And finally, here's another one talking a little about the wealth of Congressmen (who pretend to be ordinary people, of course): http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1330776120080313?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews.

The title of today's post is a quote by John Marshall.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

I saw on CNN this morning (I was at the gym, and couldn't change the channel to a better news station) that Clinton and Obama are making free trade a major issue in Ohio. Apparently Ohio has lost manufacturing jobs since President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, and the Democrats are both eager to show that they don't support free trade.

There are two issues here, as I see it. The first is econonmic: the government can't protect every industry or everyone's job. They can protect some industries, and so protect some jobs, but this will be at the expense of other industries. Take steel as an example. The government protects the steel industry (through trade restrictions), and steel workers' jobs are safe. But the steel industry needed protection in the first place because the U.S. just can't make steel as cheaply as some other countries can. As a result, the American auto industry has to pay more for steel (because they can only buy U.S. steel, not cheaper foreign steel) and has to lay people off to offset some of the added cost. At the same time the cost of American cars goes up to offset some of the rest of the added cost, while countries that are free to buy cheaper steel can sell their cars more cheaply. The American auto companies then lay off more jobs, because people are buying cheaper foreign cars.

The steel industy is just an example; the same effects are seen any time the government protects an industry. Politicans know this, and economists know this- but most Americans don't. The problem is that is takes years for the effects to be felt, and by that time most people won't connect the dots. This is wonderful for politicians, who can look like the champions of the working class for protecting an industry- and escape all the blame once the effects are felt.

The second issue is possibly even more distressing than the lack of basic economic knowledge evinced in this election season: the growing desire of most Americans for the government to take care of them. The Ohio example: they want the government to guarantee them jobs (and not just any jobs- the ones they want). If an industry is struggling and has to lay people off, they look to the government to end free trade and bring jobs back to that industry. (Apparently finding a job in a different industry or learning a more marketable skill is out of the question.) Compare the reactions to the Democrats, who want to "bring jobs back" (cheers), and to Mitt Romney, who said in Michigan that people need to face the fact that some jobs may not be coming back ("backlash"). People don't want to be self sufficient anymore, so they certainly don't want to be told that the government can't protect their jobs: they just want the government to take care of them. Nevermind that it is impossible for the government to protect everyone- most people don't know that and don't care to find out.

I'm really hoping that the people who are willing to educate themselves and who don't need the government to take care of them don't let ignorance win this election.

The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

Michael Bloomberg, the multi-billionaire mayor of New York City, has a history of imposing his values on everyone he can reach. Recently, he banned trans fats in all NYC restaurants; he did this because he is a healthy eater, and he thinks everyone else should be as well. He expanded the ban on smoking to include even small restaurants and bars, as well as office buildings, because he doesn't like smoking. He claims to believe in global warming, and wants more government regulation, of course, to prevent it (If the New York Times doesn't publish the studies that show what little global warming there is isn't caused by man, do they exist?). The list goes on, and on; it's all a part of his "quality of life" plan for NYC and everywhere else. Nevermind the people he has to step on (and put out of business) and the majority opinions he has to disregard to get where he's going- he knows what's best for us, dammit.

The worst of his pet projects, however, stems from his hatred of the Second Amendment. He just can't stand to see law-abiding citizens owning guns. To that end, he's sued numerous gun dealers up and down the Eastern seaboard (most of these suits are baseless, but it's easy to continue a lawsuit till one of you is bankrupt if you're a billionaire and he's not), tried to get Congress to force the ATF to give police departments access to gun data, and formed a coalition of mayors against guns (at least four of whom have since dropped out, citing discomfort with the group's tactics), among other things.

He claims that his actions are to fight crime, but he has no response to the many studies and data that show that gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals- all they do is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Nor does he have a rational answer for why Great Britain, for example, has experienced sky-rocketing crime statistics, or why the number of illegal guns on the street has tripled (at least) since their handgun ban. Unsurprisingly, he can not tell us why similar problems would not arise in America if he got his way. Apparently he can't be bothered with such minutiae.

But the big picture really isn't about this busybody, annoying as he is. He may be the posterchild for the big government nanny- "I know what's best for you, don't argue with me"- but at least his sphere of influence is fairly small. I can move away (which I plan to) and you never have to move here (and you shouldn't). But if a Democrat gets elected this year, they're going to bring policies like this to the whole country. Have you noticed how Obama and Clinton talk about "change" all the time? The main criticism each has of the other is the other won't "change" things enough. Question: what sort of change are they talking about? They never say. I have some ideas, and you probably do as well, but isn't it odd that their supporters just seem excited by the prospect (or maybe just the word, who knows) and aren't at all curious what it means? There really needs to be some test you have to take before you can vote.

The title of today's post is a quote by Jacob Hornberger.

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.

Here's an interesting article on the subprime mortgage situation:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-23168675.htm

The author examines the causes of the crisis, and comes to the conclusion that too much government regulation is one of them. Many factors contributed to crisis, of course, but I'm inclined to agree that too much government probably had something to do with it too. Of course, I think too much government is behind most problems.

I suspect that now the government is going to make things even worse trying to come up with a "solution." There's been a lot of talk about preventing the banks from foreclosing on the homes of subprime borrowers (something that's already happened to some extent, although it's not permanent - yet), buying out the loans, or taking other regulatory action to "fix" things. One thing you can be sure of, if the government gets involved in the "solutions" business, it's going to cost taxpayers.

Speaking of taxpayers, have you noticed that news sources almost never refer to government money as taxpayer money? They refer to this-or-that governmental agency's "budget" or simply say the dollar amount- but you don't see "1 billion taxpayer dollars used to shoot down a satellite" (for example) very often. Hmm.

Finally: mainstream news annoys me. Today the major story is that John McCain maybe possibly had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist... eight years ago. This story, which is worthy of several front pages and much discussion on television news, apparently, is based on accounts from anonymous sources. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has definitively accepted numerous illegal campaign donations, and I don't remember any of those headlining the New York Times. Not to mention all the other questionable activities she and her husband have definitively been a part of, which probably haven't even made it onto the Times' back page this election season. I try not to think about how many people are getting all of their information from these sources, and doing no research (or thinking) for themselves.

The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas B. Reed.