Federal Government: Too Big to Succeed

John Stossel:  Free enterprise does everything better

Why? Because if private companies don't do things efficiently,they lose money and die. Unlike government, they cannot compelpayment through the power to tax.

Notice how every government "solution" involves more of what caused the problem in the first place? And how more money and more bureaucracy are always involved as well?"Oh yeah!"  Sneers the progressive.  "What about public roads?  Huh?  Huh?"


Private enterprise does roads better than government

In 1995, a private road company added two lanes in the middle ofCalifornia Highway 91, right where the median strip used to be. Itthen used "congestion pricing" to let some drivers pay to speedpast rush-hour traffic. Using the principles of supply and demand,road operators charge higher tolls at times of day when demand ishigh. [...]  Bureaucrats were skeptical. Nowcongestion pricing is a hot idea for both private and public roadmanagement systems.

He provides two more examples from France and Indiana.  Cheaper, better, faster is not in the bureaucrats' lexicon.  E-470 that skirts Denver to the east is one more example right here in Colorado.  Democratic governor Dick Lamm refused to fund a bypass, so businessmen got together and built one themselves, and it is a well-used, money-making road.  If I need to get to the airport or skirt around Denver in a hurry, I pay to use it.  If I'm not pressed for time, I don't.  

Michael Medved Piles On: The Most Dangerous Corporation in the World

What's the most powerful, arrogant and dangerous corporation in the world?

No corporation on the planet comes close to the United States government in sheer magnitude, or unimaginable, unprecedented power. The nation's top 100 corporations combined still fall far short of the behemoth in Washington, D.C., which conducts extensive operations in agriculture, weapons production, medical care, housing, real estate, education, mail delivery, policing, resource development, banking, the arts, security services, food provision, transportation and much, much more. 

Within five years, federal spending will consume 25% of every dollar generated by the private economy.

...they (Tea partiers, and a growing cohort of independents) focus on the federal deficit "not because it presents an imminent crisis of its own, necessarily, but because it signifies a kind of institutional recklessness, a disconnectedness from the reality of daily life."

The public also understands that such recklessness, such unsustainable spending, would bring individuals or small businesses to rapid financial ruin; only the largest corporations, and the federal government itself, can get away with long-standing patterns of irresponsibility. The contrast raises the painful issue of double standards: the application of different rules for the people and the powerful (a designation that includes both governmental and corporate elites).

If government had to run itself like a business and follow the rules it makes everyone else follow, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Illegal Immigration, Stolen Birthright

It's time to end birthright citizenship

In Texas, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state's hospitals, according to a tally released by the state's Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide. (Dallas Morning News)

It all revolves around the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 as a way to block state laws that prevented former slaves from becoming citizens. It also effectively overruled the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that slaves were mere property and could not become citizens.

The amendment offered a broad definition of citizenship in one simple sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."  (Dallas Morning News)

We don't need to amend the constitution

Republicans are talking up legislation to end this backdoor citizenship, and liberals are screaming hysterically about Dred Scott being restored. Worse than the Democratic demagoguery, the press can't keep the facts straight. I keep reading about a constitutional amendment being required, but George Will isn't so sure:

... this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868?

The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

This has been tested in a court of law

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."

... this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States."

So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

All it takes is some legislation enacting what the Supreme Court has already affirmed

Gralia (Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school) seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/08/09/illegal-immigration-anchor-babies-and-the-14th-amendment-when-cbs-news-actually-did-its-job/

Democrats Pass the "Me First" Bill as a Payoff to Government Employees Unions

Welcome to the Anti-Capitalist, Centrally-Planned Economy

George Bush and his merry gang of Wall Street looters sent capitalism reeling.  Now the neo-socialist Democrats under Obama are finishing the job.  Can't have pampered government workers taking pay cuts like the rest of America, noooo way!

Not only is the federal government giving states more money to pay off government unions, it's also dictating how it is to be spent:

Upset that Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry put some of his state's stimulus money in reserve, Democrats stipulated that Texas can receive education money only if it spends some of the earlier stimulus funds.

Congress is sending a message to Perry, said Representative Sheila Jackson Lee: "Don't fool with money for children and education."(Reuters)

Hugo Chavez would be proud of comrade Sheila.  Have you wondered what the progressive statist alternative to capitalism would look like?  This is it!

Since the beginning of the recession, the number of unemployed has increased by more than 8 million people. For $800 billion, we could have handed every one of these people a check for $100,000—which gives a sense of what was possible with that much money and just how inefficient the actual program was. (Weekly Standard)

This is what a centrally-planned economy powered by a government "jobs program" looks like.  Lawrence B. Lindsey, in the same Weekly Standard article, shows that the stimulus is a failure as judged by the White House's own standards.  No wonder White House economist Christina Romer is escaping reality and slinking back to Berkley.

The answer, of course, is free-market capitalism
Individuals pursuing their self-interests, or "greed," as the modern day socialists in our midst call it.  Government getting out of the way and freeing up capital to be used by free persons as they see fit.

Watch the great Milton Friedman school Phil Donohue on the virtues of capitalism.  One of the rare times Phil has ever been left speechless...

Government as God

Pope Pelosi

They’re already calling Sharron Angle a kook, and this will only add to it:

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid's campaign criticized his GOP challenger Sharron Angle on Wednesday for telling a religious broadcaster that the Obama administration is violating the First Commandment by expanding federal programs and making "government our God." (LVR Journal)

Progressives have made a god of government
They deny our basic rights under natural law and insist the US Constitution is outdated. That leaves us with government decree backed by black-robed mullas wielding gavels.






Here's an Example
That a Judge would make the following statement that presumes such government power is itself a dangerous sign of the times. If this is not government as god, I don’t know what is:

[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (USA Today)

Of course, he is right in the constitutional sense: Government may not infringe upon the free exercise of religion in this country. But it is scary that a judge would even entertain such a thought or be required to reaffirm such a fundamental right.

This new commandment handed down by Judge Walker reeks of I AM:

"gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

And if this isn’t an angry god firing thunderbolts down from Mount Sinai, I don’t know what is:

A MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION...

How about a Muslim man having four wives?  I assume calling that inferior would also not be a proper basis for legislation.  Hello Sharia USA!

Obama and Pelosi, Political Godlings

Here's a Speaker Pelosi quote from Politico:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Here is Senator Obama's quote upon his winning the nomination:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that [...] this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

These and other progressive pronouncements of grandeur falling upon a worshipful, unquestioning electorate belie a Government God that is way more dangerous and intolerant than the real one in heaven.

Obamanomics

Peter Ferrara has done America a great service by writing his brilliant piece, The Green Pied Piper from Chicago.  This is the definitive Obamanomics critique to date.  Here are a few jewels I've plucked from the article...

For the record, President Obama's budget projected a deficit of $1.6 trillion for this year, after a deficit of $1.4 trillion last year, while the deficit in Bush's last year totaled $459 billion. If President Obama didn't want his soaring, record shattering deficits, he should not have increased federal spending by 25%, and federal welfare spending by one-third, in just his first two years in office.

The Republicans Never Spent Like This

The last budget adopted by a Republican-controlled Congress provided for a deficit of $161 billion in fiscal 2007. President Obama's budget for this year provided for a deficit ten times as large at $1.6 trillion. That is why Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) accurately told Obama earlier this year, "The annual deficits under the Republicans became the monthly deficits under the Democrats."

Deregulation is not to Blame

Overregulation contributed to the crisis by bludgeoning banking institutions into making bad mortgage loans, granting monopoly powers to rating agencies that labeled ultimately toxic subprime mortgage securities as AAA investments, and then forcing financial institutions to write the value of those securities down to almost nothing under "mark to market" regulations.

I love this "green" zinger...

But the economics of President Obama's prosperity through "clean" energy plan is even more transparently nuts than the science. [...]  First, the government provides enormous subsidies, just more bailouts actually, for businesses to pursue inherently unreliable and unworkable "alternative" energy sources such as wind and solar, the energy that powered the Roman Empire.

All Energy Subsidies are not Created Equal

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that government energy subsidies amount to $0.25 per megawatt for oil and gas, $0.44 per megawatt for coal, $1.59 for nuclear, $23.37 for wind and $24.34 for solar. (Oil is actually not subsidized at all, but disfavored by punitive taxes.) And that was before President Obama's "investments" adding up to an additional $80 billion per year in federal "alternative energy" subsidies.

Ferrara closes by observing how President Obama disparages the pro-liberty idea of an "Ownership Society," and instead embraces government dependency for all.

We should not be surprised that a red diaper baby disparages ownership and property rights, a view central to socialist philosophy all the way back to Marx.

Judge Walker's Rape of Reason

Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision is illogical and an abuse of the law, according to critics

The libertarian in me says people are free to do what they want so long as it does no harm to others.  David Harsanyi sums up this point of view in his article, Time for a Divorce.

But isn't it about time we freed marriage from the state?

Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman -- or no one at all -- and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

I certainly don't believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage -- we already have that covered -- but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business.

For the tried and true culture warriors, this just won’t do. I too am opposed to cultural and definitional finagling. Marriage is a time-tested institution common to almost all cultures, and but for a few rare exceptions, it has always meant a union of opposite sexes.

An Illogical and Biased Ruling
Dan McLaughlin has written the definitive article on the subject, The Prop 8 Decision, Having it Both Ways. In it, he reveals the logical inconsistencies of Judge Walker’s central thesis:

Judge Walker’s decision is internally, logically inconsistent in its treatment of the worth of cultural values, arguing that morality and tradition are not a valid basis for supporting the legal status of marriage, but at the same time finding a Constitutional violation from the fact that the same-sex alternative (domestic partnerships) lacks the social and cultural status that marriage has…and which it derives from its grounding in longstanding moral, cultural and religious traditions.

McLaughlin also explains the different sections of a court ruling, and points out how the judge smuggled his biased assertions into the “Facts” section of this particular one. If you want to understand the legal aspects of the case, this is a must-read.

Moral Reasoning
Matthew J Franck’s “Assault on Moral Reasoning” shows how to argue this subject on its merits without resorting to biblical principles which have no standing in US Law. He also explains how despite this, the societal norms of a people, informed by their faith, do indeed figure into lawmaking.

Once it would have been thought to strengthen the case for a law, that it rested on the moral views of the lawmakers, if no countervailing right against being governed by such views could be adduced. And it would have been a matter of no legal suspicion whatsoever that the moral views informing a law found confirmation in widely held religious views as well.

For such moral principles are not articles of faith, in the sense of being specially revealed to the elect or the faithful. They are the conclusions of trains of reasoning about right and wrong, and about human ends and the fitness of the means to them.

In language we might borrow from Plato's Euthyphro, the moral norms that govern marriage are embraced by the pious not because they are mysterious commands of an inscrutable divine will, but because they are rationally knowable as good in themselves, and for this reason find support in the dictates of faith as well.

Just as important, Franck explains the logical fallacies in Judge Walker’s reasoning.

Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge's opinion is his declaration that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage." This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit-a judicial "because I said so"-and the phrase "no longer" conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive.

If you want to argue this issue and defend your point of view, I highly recommend these two articles. For extra credit, there’s more reading at the end of this post.

Further Reading:
Atheism.About.com
Patrick McIlheran - Right On
USA Today - It’s Not About You
WSJ - Prop 8

Saturday Reading

Saturday readership is always low here at Western Hero, so it's a good time for me to do a "link dump."  I bookmark interesting stuff intending to blog about it, but alas, there just isn't enough time...

Build your walls with cannon balls
Intellectual Ammo, the tab at the top of this blog, contains a treasure trove of original thinking on timeless issues.  No opinion pieces, just authoritative government data and think tanks.  If you enjoy shooting it out with libs and converting the undecided, go get your ammo!

US sovereign debt is reaching scary levels, with no apparent way down.  Here's just one reason why:  Obama and the Pelosicrats' spending is locked in forever...

A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit is because last year’s “stimulus” was not stimulus in the traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand, the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent increase in the base level of government spending — including spending on federal jobs. (NY Times)

Here's a good Bloomberg article on Debt and Taxes
The writer plays it down the middle, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.  Good analysis of our fiscal position and what our options are.




What is Populism?
The left hates the tea party because it has taken on a populist tone, and populism is supposed to be their gig.   Henry Olson at American Enterprise Institute has written an excellent history of Populism in America, Populism, American Style

Finally, Peggy Noonan writes, America is at risk of boiling over.