Thursday, October 21, 2010

Too big to cut?

The party line is that government is so big it can't be cut.
Even some Republicans, mostly those with beltway fever, are echoing this line.
Billions can be cut, easily. Examples:
The Department of Education. Totally unnecessary. Schools are a state and local function.
The Davis-Bacon Act. Enacted during the Depression to keep blacks from getting jobs, it adds billions to construction costs.
Highway trust funds. About a quarter of it is diverted into non-highway uses like bike lanes and choo-choo trains.Use it for what it was intended and/or cut it back.
The Department of Energy. Totally unnecessary.
Environmental Protection Agency. FDA, and dozens of others could be cut substantially.
Big savings would accrue by privatizing public parks and the twin monstrosities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Moving to the Fair Tax would be another money saving move. Failing that, fewer tax brackets, with lower maximum rates and capital gains rates.
Finally, the bloated bureaucracy, overpaid and under-worked. Freeze pay and convert pension plans to defined contribution.
All these have been discussed forever but if Congress wants to do something about the $13.7 trillion debt, which is propelling us to financial ruin, it needs to quit talking and act.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Spin masters in action

Liberals were quick to misquote Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, after her recent debate.
Her manager says she was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Actually, it was her opponent, liberal Chris Coons, who demonstrated his ignorance by being unable to name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment.
All the Constitution does is ensure that the government will be neutral to religion. It does not make it hostile to religion nor preclude any religious references in public, as liberals would prefer.
The "wall of separation between church and state" is a phrase from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Church in Danbury, Conn., in 1802. It is not in the Constitution.
Liberals have been so effective in turning schools into indoctrination academies that two-thirds of Americans, according to a Columbia Law School study in 2002, believe that the Constitution says "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx, author of that phrase, would be proud.
When a slick professional politician like Coons takes on a novice like O'Donnell, he can make cheap debating points but it doesn't change the equation. This year's election is between more freedom and less freedom. Choose wisely.

Monday, October 18, 2010

To the rear, march!

Under Obama, the liberal lemmings are marching bravely right to the cliff.
Socialist Sweden for decades has been the liberal idea of heaven, if any of them thought such a place existed.
Sweden now is moving to the right as fast as it can, realizing that it can only print wealth, not create it.
Germany's leader, meanwhile, has declared that nation's attempt at "multiculturalism" is a dismal failure and must be abandoned. It remains in full swing in the U.S.
The Brits are slashing government jobs, and spending.
Even the Dutch now are dropping pot cafes and other vestiges of the Sixties. Not to worry. All the potheads can move to California.
The rest of the world has been there and wants to go back (except for Cuba, North Korea, San Francisco and a few other foreign places, of course).
But the American left, led by Pelosi, Reid and Obama, still are searching for Shangri-la.

Barry Blowhard takes a bow

President Obama, with characteristic modesty, is giving himself credit for saving America from another Depression.
Sorry, but I think George Bush is the hero.
Obama has made a career out of blaming Bush for the world's woes but in this case the facts show that Bush has a better claim.
The government says the 18-month recession ended in June 2009.
That was six months after Obama took office, and long before any of his misguided policies took place.
You can't take credit for ending a recession when all you've done is make speeches blaming your predecessor for creating it.
In truth, government action usually is too little, too late, in affecting recessions as the accompanying chart shows. They are a natural phenomena and self-correcting. Generally, the government just prolongs them, or turns them into a depression.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Crunch time

Nov. 2 offers a golden opportunity, but if you want to put the nation back on track you have to vote.
Dims will be out in force, protecting the socialist agenda. Look for 100 percent turnout from the cemeteries and millions of votes by citizens of other countries, even as they try to prevent members of the U.S. armed forces from voting. The latter is a tactic they employed in 2000 while trying to steal the election in Florida.
Pundits and pollsters say conservatives will win back Congress, or at least the House. But it can't and won't happen unless every conservative casts a vote.
Anyone who was part of the Mistake in '08 also can help, and without anyone knowing. We still have a secret ballot, at least for now. To ensure it stays that way, Congress must be changed.
Once that's done, we can look ahead to 2012 and hope for change.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Sociable security

Once again, desperate Democrats are bringing out the Social Security bogeyman.
Many people don't understand how Social Security works. The government forcibly takes money from a worker's paycheck and gives it to someone who has retired. If there is any left, the politicians spend it on whatever nutty fad is dominant at the moment. They promise to put the money back in the system, someday. The only way they can get that money is to take it from someone else when the time comes.
It is the greatest Ponzi scheme in history. It worked fine when 13 people were paying for every one taking out, but today with two workers sharing their paychecks with one retiree, it isn't such a good deal.
Conservatives propose making it a rational, workable system by allowing people a choice. Stick with this, and get low returns, or invest the money and get tangible returns.
When the British were offered this choice during one of Britain's occasional bouts with reality, many Brits chose the private investment route. When liberals took over again, they shut down the option.
For liberals, the problem is that investing the money in the private sector does not give them a chance to get their hands on it, and the taxpayer is not beholden to politicians for his retirement.
So, liberals refer to honest reform and offering a choice as "taking away Social Security."
Well, did you expect them to tell the truth?