Constant Conservative

Perhaps all is not lost. I had touched earlier on the delay in the Daschle confirmation. Various people had wondered at the source of the delay (procedural, family matter, etc). Now, it appears that there might have been a very familiar reason for it:

Another thing that happens a lot in Washington is that when Democrats get appointed to visible, high-ranking positions in the Executive Branch, they suddenly discover that they owe a lot more money in taxes. We saw that with Tim Geithner. The latest example is Daschle, Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services:

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, picked by President Barack Obama to lead the administration’s health reform efforts, recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in unpaid taxes and $11,964 in interest, according to a Senate document obtained by The Associated Press.

The White House acknowledged Friday that “some tax issues” had emerged in connection with the nomination, but a spokesman said the president is confident the former Senate Democratic leader will be confirmed as the new health secretary.

Daschle filed amended tax returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 to reflect additional income for consulting work, the use of a car service and reductions in charitable contribution deductions. He filed the returns after the announcement that Obama intended to nominate him to head the Health and Human Services Department.

[...]

Is Tom Daschle a crook, or is it fairer to think of him as a low-level tool of various big-time crooks who play the Washington game by the corrupt rules of the Democratic Party? Either way, it is hard to think of a worse person to put in charge of “reforming” the nation’s health care system.

When I think of reform, I think of correcting something which has gone awry and bringing it back into line with what is right (and righteous). When Daschle talks about “reforming health care” he means re-forming it into something which has never been successful long-term in any modern society. Of course, in his world, that involves making it “righteous.” The problem is that we have remarkably different definitions of that term.

I think what we are seeing here, both with Geithner and Daschle, are two issues. The first one is that the tax code may well be so complex that it is difficult for anyone with more than a single employer, paid for house and no other income to get it right the first time he/she files federal income taxes for a given year. There is a solution for this problem and it is called the Fair Tax. The other issue is that people (such as Geithner and Daschle) who believe in the abeyance of personal responsibility for the general population believe that such rules apply to them as well–until they are in a position where such lack of personal responsibility might hurt their chances to implement even greater programs for the social good.

Some of our illustrious state senators think that either a) we should be protected from ourselves by making a violation of the seat belt law a primary offense or b) wouldn’t it be nice if we could get $5 million from the federal government if we make a violation of the seat belt law a primary offense.

I am particularly struggling to understand Ms. Jerstad. Here’s why:

Adopting a primary seat belt law is a step South Dakota can take to save lives in traffic crashes and qualify for $5.2 million in federal highway safety money, said Sen. Sandy Jerstad, D-Sioux Falls, the bill’s prime sponsor.

“Sometimes we just don’t do what we should do unless there’s a law against it,” Jerstad said.

So, is the corollary that we do what we should if there is no law against it? I’m thinking she must have said the opposite of what she meant. Regardless, we do not need yet another law which interferes with the freedoms of individuals. Meddling should be left to parents and preachers–not the government.

This would make matters very interesting, to say the least:

“Clearly, the NRA is the ultimate ‘we the people,’ family, grass-roots organization for what is clearly Job 1 for free men everywhere: to guarantee our God-given right to keep and bear arms and defend ourselves,” he tells our Suzi Parker. “To be so honored to participate in any way, as an NRA board member or the ultimate honor of serving as president, would surely be a duty I would put my heart and soul into. I am genuinely moved that it is even being discussed. I am ready, willing, and able to serve if the good NRA members call upon me.”

I would like to think that most people are familiar with the truth that paying someone to do (or not do) something tends to result in that behavior increasing. The following piece from the WSJ makes a good point regarding this:

Another damaging inspiration [in the stimulus package] is the plan to throw $30.3 billion at Cobra insurance plans. The unemployed are currently allowed to keep their work health benefits for 18 or 36 months since 1986. While they search for a new job, they must pay 102% of the full insurance premium, including the employer’s share. But Democrats now plan to subsidize these plans to the tune of 65%.

Are they making Cobra a new entitlement? Cobra was never intended as an option to assist the long-term unemployed — considering that adverse selection means Cobra enrollees cost businesses about 145% as much as covered employees. Since Democrats want to boost participation by propping up Cobra use, that will result in less capital to invest in new jobs in the middle of a recession. It will also mean adding another disincentive (in addition to unemployment insurance) to get a new job. When you subsidize people not to work, you get more nonworkers.

There was one occasion when I looked at Cobra, only to not use it because of the cost. Had it been much more affordable, I definitely would have gone with with it (and coasted along at a stop-gap job which earned me about 40% of what I had been making before I was laid off). As it was, the cost of continuing coverage under Cobra was one factor which sent me to another state to get work which was comparable (in earnings) to what I had received before the layoff.

Here’s the latest functionality from GM’s OnStar system. In brief, their newest vehicles allow OnStar to control certain of the vehicle’s abilities remotely, slowing the vehicle down if it is stolen. Of course, how long before they also do it to keep you from breaking the speed limit, or because you didn’t pay your toll, or didn’t pay last month’s payment on time, or your wife just accused you of taking off with the kids, or  . . . ?

Personally, I just became less likely to buy a GM product with OnStar on board, not because I’m afraid I’ll do something wrong and get caught, but because I do not wish others to have such power to control my person (against my wishes) without going through due process.

It goes back to the the issue of safety vs. freedom: you cannot have all of each at the same time.

HT (The Liberty Digest)

Mr Reding has a good perspective on the matter at hand:

Small government is good government. Small government helps the American worker because it does not allow the kind of concentrations of power that we have now. Why do big corporations spend billions on lobbying Congress to tilt the law in their favor? Because Congress has the power to tilt the laws in their favors. The reason why the Founders deliberately created a limited government of enumerated powers is to prevent the kind of naked interest-buying that we see now. The more power you give the government, the more incentives there are for government to use their power for their own advantage.

[...]

Here is where liberalism fundamentally gets it wrong: government regulation of the market will never produce equality. It will only benefit the big players. If we want a more egalitarian and equitable society we cannot put in place barriers that keep the small players out. Glaeser is right, and the case for small-government egalitarianism is one that needs to be made now more than ever.

As I’ve said previously, what better time for government to contract then when tax revenues are drying up due to the recession? A smaller, leaner government has much to commend it.

Mr. Blanchard of South Dakota Politics addresses District of Columbia vs. Heller succinctly. Here is a bit from his exposition:

The Constitution does not recognize any “corporate rights,” except those belonging to the American people as a whole and some belonging to the people of the various states. But when it says “the right of the people,” it always means the right of individual persons, as in

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…

Scalia goes on to show that “the right to bear and keep arms” was understood by the framers as a pre-existing right belonging to individual persons. It was one of those rights that the founders preserved from the English political tradition. English kings who wished to become tyrants had tried to disarm Englishmen who were not loyal to them. Protecting the rights of every citizen to keep and bear arms was thus a bulwark against tyranny. Hence the prefatory clause. Scalia shows that this interpretation was well-grounded in the various state constitutions.

Trying to understand the meaning of documents which are hundreds of years old can be quite a challenge. However, in this age of literary criticism (and even “higher criticism” for religious texts) one often believes that critics read way too much into a text in an effort extract the meaning from it. While I cannot deny that matters are not always as simple as they appear, I believe we should consider that the simplest approach to understanding the Constitution may be to take it at face value. Were we to err in that direction, government would be necessarily constrained to its proper role (and not feel compelled to meddle in the minutiae of everyone’s lives).

The latest news regarding the state of the insanely bloated Hutt of a bill may be found here. Bottom line for SD? Johnson likes it but Thune does not. Herseth’s position may be found over at South Dakota War College. She likes it too.

Many of us on the right have been castigated becasuse we have claimed, time and again, that the mainstream media is largely against conservative principles, people and politicians. Members of the media have regularly claimed objectivity in the face of rather damning evididence to the contrary.

Given this information from The View‘s Joy Behar in an interview with Larry King (brought to you via Power Line), perhaps some more of our detractors on the left will ‘fess up:

KING: Has “The View” become more political?

BEHAR: Yes, because of the election year. Yes. I think that — don’t you think that comedians were very instrumental this year in helping Obama get elected?

KING: By attacking Bush, you mean?

BEHAR: Yes, I mean Tina Fey, she really put the nail in the old coffin there. And “The View,” we had our little interactions, little (INAUDIBLE) with the McCains, although I like John McCain very much, but I didn’t want him to be president, so I had to do what I had to do.

Well, thanks for laying it right out there. There’s much more that is sickening in the interview, but the most significant point, I think, is that network women’s television is on record as being an organ of the Democratic Party. There is no conceivable reason why any Republican or conservative would support this nonsense by watching it.

It doesn’t get much more black and white than this, does it? Full transcript of the interview is available here.

By now most of you have probably heard that President Obama paid a backhanded compliment to Rush Limbaugh when he (Obama) said the following:

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

It seems as though Fastidious became a bit fed up when a Republican Congressman from Georgia, Phil Gingrey, ended up telling folks that it was easy to say things if one was a talk radio host, but that congresspeople had real jobs (or words to that end). She called the good Congressman’s office and much learning ensued.

At the end of her rant, Fastidious leaves us with this closer:

Listen, Republican leadership… you sacrificed your principles on the alter of political expediency, and so when I call to remind you of them, don’t tell me I’m the nut job.  Stop insulting your base.

I’m about to nail a conservative Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Holy Church of Republicanism.

As an Independent who is not a Republican, in large part, for the reasons she mentions, I’d be glad to help craft those theses. I’m concerned about one thing, however.

It will be quite a challenge to keep it to 95.

The idea of nationalizing the United State’s banks has been around for about as long as we’ve had banks. People who were generally considered fringe on the left (full-blown socialists) dreamed about such an event. People on the opposite side of things (19th-century liberals) have had nightmares about the same.

No longer is it a matter of fringe thinking:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that the idea of nationalization, or perhaps partial nationalization, of America’s leading banks is gaining currency among U.S. policymakers.

“Whatever you want to call it,” Speaker Pelosi told ABC News, “If we are strengthening them (the banks), then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization.”

Problems with Citigroup and with Bank of America may well require further infusions of federal funds into the banking system, according to news reports. Already, more than $300 billion has been given by the government to those two banks and to hundreds of others.

“I’m not talking about total ownership,” said Pelosi. “Would we have ever have thought we would see the day when we’d be using that terminology? Nationalization of banks?”

President Barack Obama and his aides are not employing the same language but are apparently thinking along the same lines.

May I say that there is no such thing as partial nationalization of a banking system? Either the government controls banking, or it doesn’t. If the government exercises control over the banks because it is the largest shareholder, they’ve been nationalized.

While it is possible that I and others who think as I do believe that nationalizing the banks would prove that the once and future stimulus plans are not working, I would not be at all surprised to find that nationalizing the banks was in President Obama’s cards all along.

After all, in his expressed thoughts to date, we should not worry about whether government is too large or small, but whether it works. A marvelous pragmatic thought, until one understands that President Obama is one the one who may very well determine that all of his plans work and that those put forward by the loyal (and otherwise) opposition do not work.

I’ve not been writing much on the new stimulus for a couple of reasons: 1) I’m worn down with financial news; and 2) a Democrat congress will have little trouble shoving it through. Nonetheless, I’m embedding the following video from the Cato Institute because it is worth understanding what is going on with the latest attempt to spend our way out of debt: