who's your nanny?

The Social Security Fraud

Many people were rightly angry at Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme which bilked many people out of millions. Unfortunately there has not been similar outrage directed toward the government Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

I Want My Cut, Too

El Presidente Bush has signed into law a $6 billion emergency bill extending unemployment insurance to the masses. Clearly this is the social justice balm to soothe public after the whipping it took when the (first?) bailout bill was passed against its wishes. This will lead to more unemployment for it creates moral hazard so that the unemployed will have less incentive to find a job. Moreover, those who are at the margin may find it better to quit their job and go on unemployment due to the disutility of labor. Transfer payments do not increase national income or wealth. To think otherwise is like thinking that one can take water out of the deep end of a pool and pour it into the shallow end of the same pool and expect the water level to rise.

Again, Bastiat's definition of the State is quite apropos-"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

I Rest My Case

Sadly, the DC Examiner has endorsed the $700 billion government bailout, further supporting my claim that mainstream conservatives can no longer be accused of supporting limited government, low taxes, and individual liberty.

Amazingly, the editorial outlines exactly why the U.S. cannot afford an additional welfare program of this magnitude -- it correctly points out that the national debt is $10 trillion and that the federal government currently owes $40 trillion in entitlement benefits alone -- but gives it the nod anyway.

[...] Failing to enact the bailout risks a major plunge in the stock market, more bank failures and undermining future economic growth. That said, the $700 billion bail-out is only a short-term fix. It avoids assessing the regulatory failures and shady private sector actions that contributed to the immediate crisis, and it does nothing about the root causes of the economic crisis. Looming over it all are the enormous difficulties that will come if we are to free the nation from the grip of the debt monster upon which we have made ourselves dependent.

The root causes of the economic crisis are the very same socialist government policies and fiscal profligacy that lawmakers are relying on right now in their insane, misguided attempt to "solve" it. This is sheer lunacy, yet the DC Examiner essentially believes that a short-term "fix" is worth a long-term disaster.

The only solution to this crisis is to allow the natural market correction to take its course, now matter how severe, and to stop allowing the state to plunder taxpayers as it borrows, spends, and prints its way to eventual financial ruin.

The Source of All Tyranny

Lew Rockwell on why the central bank is exempt from criticism in political discourse.

Put Vallejo Out of Business for Good

The city of Vallejo, Calif., has lavished such generous salaries and benefits on public employees that it has gone broke and filed for bankruptcy in federal court.

Even within the pricey San Francisco Bay region, the city's generous payments to public safety workers stand apart: $306,000 a year in pay and benefits for a police captain (six times what the average schoolteacher in Vallejo earns); $240,146 for a police lieutenant; $171,000 for the average firefighter. Public safety workers can get 90 percent of their top salary when they retire after age 50.

But to the mayor and the City Council, the problem goes beyond the fat promises made to its public safety unions: Vallejo's city manager earns nearly $317,000, more than Vice President Cheney. Because there's no ceiling on the amount of unused sick leave that Vallejo employees can cash in when they retire, some have left with checks as large as $400,000. After a mere five years, Vallejo workers can retire with permanent, lifetime health benefits.

When individuals or businesses file for bankruptcy, the debtor generally has to surrender non-exempt property to a bankruptcy trustee, who will then liquidate the property and distribute it among the debtor's creditors. In exchange, the debtor is usually relieved of some of his debt.

In the case of Vallejo, the city likewise should have to surrender its property to its creditors -- a.k.a. taxpayers -- which would in effect return this confiscated property to its rightful owners, who have been robbed by public officials in order to install and operate the municipality.

As would be the case for any private enterprise, the city of Vallejo should be forced to go out of business as a result of its frivolity and irresponsible management -- essentially resulting in a transfer of ownership from public to private hands and the creation of a stateless society within the state of California.

Of course, that's assuming justice would actually prevail here. In reality, Vallejo will most likely be bailed out by state and federal taxpayers so it can live on and continue that most noble of democratic exercises known as financing its racket at the point of a gun.

"...They're not going to miss it."

"They" meaning you. "It" meaning the loot you bring home as a result of your hard work.

You've got money. The government wants it to finance endless welfare programs. Screw you.

And before you go thinking you'll vote for McCain because it's only the Dems who want to raise taxes to create new entitlement benefits, remember he'd need to play ball all day and night with a Democratic Congress if he were president in order to get them to sign off on 100 years of war.

Just like Bush never fought McCain-Feingold because he needed the votes for the Iraq war.

McCain the Billionaire

After he confiscates all your money, that is, to fund his programs advancing entitlements, welfare, and murder.

Good thing he still rails against the pittance the feds spend in earmarks, though!

An Economy In the Bedpan

Remember this the next time you hear some politician singing the praises of universal health care.

Self-Promo

Just noticed that my article on Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's deficit spending ran in the local Enterprise newspaper last Friday.

Nice Little Rant

From one of my favorite liberals -- good friend, fellow Sabres fan, and college frat bro Jon Keller, who identifies with ideas instead of party.

I'm not going to say anything bad about the Ultimate Sports Road Trip guys. Their blog is informative and if you are a sports hippie, it is Eden (maybe Angola). Unfortunately I quit reading their blog once I found out they were Cheektowaga Democrats. I use sports to escape from the nightmare that unions and 'New York Style Democrats' have inflicted on our once great region...I don't need to read about anybody's political campaign on a sports blog (did you hear that Jim Kelly?). I'm OK with a comment here and there but come on. If you want to save the region, stand-up to the unions who bleed our tax base through elective plastic surgery, and selfish, uncompromising benefit packages. Who gets paid sick days AND paid vacation days anymore? We must have the best looking, best rested communists in the nation.

Probably couldn'ta said it better myself.

O'Malley's Misplaced Priorities

My latest article runs today in the Baynet and discusses Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's blind obeisance to big government.

Senseless Deaths, Senseless Policy

Three separate automobile crashes have resulted in the deaths of six Charles County, Maryland teens since October. In two of the accidents, however, the driver in each was killed despite wearing his or her seatbelt. The Charles County Sheriff's Department's response? Why, increase the harassment and ticketing of teen drivers who aren't wearing seatbelts, of course!

In cooperation with Charles County Public Schools, the Sheriff’s deputies now strictly monitor and enforce seatbelt use as students enter or leave local high school parking areas.  Students who are found not wearing seatbelts will be ticketed. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a guess that every single one of the kids killed or injured in all these accidents made a personal choice about whether to wear a seatbelt or not. Obviously, however, this won't prevent the government from exploiting these deaths in order to further monitor and fine of the rest of us. Just the opposite, it provides a great little excuse for our trusty politicians to send out their gun-toting tax collectors to grab even more money for the state.

All deaths are tragic, and unfortunately, young drivers are going to make mistakes on the road. But southern Maryland is a fairly rural area, which means many of its transportation routes are highways and winding back country roads that are very dark at night. I don't view this spate of accidents as some sort of epidemic but rather an indication of what can happen when people make bad decisions or have the misfortune of brushing up against bad luck.

Families are free to bring civil suits against drivers who've unnecessarily put their children at risk while driving, but these accidents hardly justify even broader government meddling in our lives and oversight of our actions. If the state insists upon spending our money, perhaps it could scale back on its new toys for the police force like unmarked SUVs and pickup trucks, all its social welfare and disability assistance, education expenditures, and any number of other entitlement programs and light up some of its roads. Until we have this discussion, don't believe for a minute that harassing our high schoolers will make a bit of difference in how well they drive.

Too Chicken to Fight for Freedom

I guess we should be happy the Club for Growth has finally acknowledged Ron Paul's tenacious fight for the presidency.

Until recently, the Club hadn't even included Rep. Paul with the likes of Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in their economic profiles of the candidates. You'll note that the Club released Brownback's record on economic issues way back in February, and only this week released a white paper for Ron Paul.

I'm not exactly sure why the Club suddenly decided to profile Dr. Paul, but maybe they figured it looked a little silly to ignore him when they've already compiled a scorecard for a guy who's not even in the race anymore. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Paul raised as much money as John McCain in the third quarter and trails only Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in primary cash on hand.

So congratulations to the Club for Growth for finally waking to the idea that the only truly pro-growth Republican in the race deserves some recognition. Maybe my inner cynic is coming out to play here, but I don't believe this has to do with anything other than trying to save face. After all, Ron Paul refuses to go gently into that good night, and only the fool still clings to the belief that Paul is a sideshow -- a "kook," a "pencil head" -- as he spreads his message of freedom and liberty.

But that doesn't mean the Club won't still do its best to discount Paul's viability. Indeed, Club president Pat Toomey analogizes Ron Paul as "the perfect as the enemy of the good."

"While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect," Mr. Toomey continued.

That's right, folks. Ron Paul is just "too principled" for America. Apparently, the Club for Growth would rather only endorse candidates for president who are kinda-sorta pro-growth. Toomey criticizes Paul for opposing "free trade" agreements primarily composed of terms dictated by the U.S., and federal school choice programs that are no business of the federal government. Fair enough, Mr. Toomey, but just don't go around touting your organization as dedicated to economic growth. That the federal government deigns to regulate (i.e., limit and control) trade or education in the first place is abhorrent and is the very antithesis of pro-growth policy.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the Club's white paper on Ron Paul is the insistence to not just find, but emphasize, the (supposedly) negative in Paul's policy when it does the opposite for virtually every other Republican candidate. Go ahead and read Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani's reports for starters and tell me they don't read as if the Club's trying to turn a prostitute into a prom queen.

But Ron Paul? Hey, he's essentially perfect -- indeed, he's "ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies" -- but Paul's supposed opposition to "all but the perfect" will apparently spell our country's turn to disaster should he win election in 2008.

In short, I've never read anything so bizarre in all my life. The Club for Growth ostensibly exists to fight for principles of economic growth, yet it categorically denounces the one presidential candidate it admits is the most economically principled. It laughably suggests that because Ron Paul insists on possessing a voting record that is consistent -- in other words, what Ron Paul says is what Ron Paul does -- "we might never get a chance to pursue the good too."

I don't know exactly where the Club for Growth has been lately, but our politicians in Washington have been shoveling a lot of crap for a long time now. And as far as this writer is concerned, I'm about ready for our lawmakers to pursue nothing if "good" means continuing to settle for a federal government that will maintain and likely extend its collective control over virtually every waking minute of my life.

Deja Vu All Over Again

Don't miss this article by Lew Rockwell, who says that when it comes to politicians, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Unless you're talking about Ron Paul, of course, who speaks out against politicians in both major parties who believe central planning offers the best hope for the future.

When Does the Club For Growth Agree with the New York Times?

When even this newspaper realizes that subsidizing millionaire farmers is not reform. Here are the editors on the proposed farm bill:

The bill would perpetuate an outdated and hugely expensive — $70 billion over the last five years — system of price supports and direct payments that disproportionately rewards big growers of row crops like corn, wheat and soybeans. More than half of this spending is concentrated in about 20 Congressional districts.

Incredibly, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, touts the bill as a big step toward reform. Ms. Pelosi seems especially proud of a new means test under which farmers with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more would no longer receive subsidies, down from the present cap of $2.5 million.

Reducing an outrageous cap to a lower outrageous cap is not exactly our idea of reform. The $1 million limit is also five times the $200,000 cap proposed by the Bush administration, which Ms. Pelosi is constantly accusing of catering to the rich.

As my buddy Andy at the Club points out, "You know a spending bill is bad when liberal newspapers attack liberals in Congress."

My Plan For Entitlement Spending

Yesterday the Club For Growth issued a press release expressing hope that Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson will continue to campaign on his willingness to tolerate pro-growth fiscal policies.

John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have all demonstrated a deep antipathy towards the free market and a gleeful eagerness to raise taxes through the roof the first chance they get. In the MSNBC Democratic debate, only Governor Richardson chided the tax-and-spend triumvirate, saying, “Well, as Democrats, I just hope that we always don't think of new taxes to pay for programs.”

I think I can help.

Obviously, one good way to reduce the need for program funding is to limit the number of entitlement programs we invent in the first place. Of course, I really couldn't care less how many programs our politicians implemented if I weren't expected and ultimately forced to pay for the ones I don't want and won't benefit from.

Here's my plan: Let congressional and presidential candidates campaign for all the social and corporate welfare programs they like. But instead of allowing the federal government to immorally confiscate and hoard our income in order to pay for a seemingly limitless number of prospective entitlements, we should expect these candidates to bankroll their own programs.

How would this work? Easy. If a candidate really cares so much about his constituents that he's willing to spend other people's money on discriminatory assistance programs, he should be willing to spend his own money on them too. Why, if he possesses the means, he can always dig into his own bank account to foot the bills once elected. But I'm going to go ahead and assume that most politicians, despite their overwhelming altruistic tendencies and allegiance to the less fortunate, would choose against this.

No matter. Politicians have lots of friends, not least those loyal lap dogs called voters who love to send campaign contributions their way in exchange for any number of favors. And if political supporters care enough to see their pet programs implemented, they should take little issue with the idea that they should be the ones paying for them.

In short, let candidates accumulate a war chest of campaign contributions with no limit. These funds can obviously be used both in the run-up to an election and afterward, when politicians face the prospect of paying for all those programs they promised in order to gain election from the outset. Of course, we might need to abolish those draconian campaign finance laws in order to implement my plan, but I've never thought free political speech was too much of a burden anyway.

You say you love freedom? Then expect the people who vote for entitlement programs to provide the funding for them. The politicians who appeal to the most voters will win and, more importantly, likewise will only be able to make good on the programs they've been sent to office to enact. With a finite pool of resources, they will be forced to not only implement the most valuable programs, but also economize as if they were running a private business. After all, if they exhaust funding as a result of their own incompetence or careless decisions, they'll either have to abandon their programs or appeal to their supporters for additional sponsorship. One would imagine that either scenario would incentivize our politicians to maximize the efficiency of their time and resources.

Now, as you sit there rolling your eyes and cynically murmering to yourself that such a plan is highly unrealistic, ask yourself why. Ask yourself if it's because it's much easier use the tyrannical power of government to compel citizens to pay taxes that are rarely used for their own benefit. Or if it's because it's easier to be charitable with other people's money. Or if, perish the thought, it's because politicians would never adopt a plan that would result in the elimination of so many wasteful, unnecessary entitlement programs and, quite likely, their own cushy jobs in the process.

Maryland Transparency Act

I haven't had the chance to check my personal email at night for the past couple days because I've been tied up helping our tile guy lay our bathroom floor, but when I finally got around to it last night I got a nice surprise.

On Monday, Free State Foundation president Randy May distributed a press release (.pdf) announcing that the Maryland House of Delegates has introduced HB 1252, the Maryland Funding and Accountability and Transparency Act of 2007, a bill that would require the state to create a database allowing citizens to track state funding of grants, loans, and other financial assistance funded by the state. It's basically a state version of Coburn-Obama, which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress last year to provide spending transparency at the federal level.

Ironically, I wrote on Monday that I'd written my delegate, Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell, a while ago about the possibility of such legislation but hadn't yet heard from him. Well, it turns out that he's a co-sponsor of this legislation. The Free State Foundation has been pressing for such a bill for the past couple months, and it looks like we're finally making some headway.

Interestingly, HB 1252 addresses many of the suggestions that I outlined for this bill in a recent article in the Washington Examiner. Mr. May notes:

HB 1252 requires that the website include spending information that includes the amount of all state awards, the transaction type, the name of the agency making the award, and the budget program funding source. In a commentary entitled, Put Maryland Government Spending on the Web, published in the Washington Examiner on January 22, 2007, Free State Foundation Research Associate Trevor Bothwell advocated the adoption of legislation along the very same lines of HB 1252. In that commentary urging establishment of a state website with information like that required by HB 1252, Bothwell stated: “All politicians will not welcome this increased scrutiny. But if they want our money, they should at least welcome our oversight. Key to that oversight is putting in place a userfriendly, easily searchable, up-to-date database that allows Maryland taxpayers to readily track how the government is spending their money.”

I can't think of an issue any more more bipartisan than this, as every taxpayer, regardless of political affiliation, should want and certainly deserves to know how the government is spending his or her hard-earned money.

Let the Sunlight In

My latest article runs in the Washington Examiner today and argues for a Coburn-Obama-style spending transparency database for Maryland. In it I explain why the state, which recently returned to one-party Democratic control, would benefit greatly from a law to establish such a tool and why Democrats should be able to pass it without much fear of political reprisal.

Questions of the Day

Are ever-growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country? Do these expenditures, and the resulting deficits, make us more free or less free? Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care? Should younger taxpayers be expected to provide retirement security and health care even for affluent retirees? Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded by Congress each year constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain programs were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people must ask, even though Congress lacks the courage to do so.

Courtesy Rep. Ron Paul.