Constant Conservative

My house, along with millions of others, received a letter this week telling it that it would be receiving another letter shortly. The English portion of it read as follows:

[]About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.

Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.[]

Others have already noted that it was rather wasteful to send out something telling us that we will be receiving something later. In fairness to the Census, however, one must remember that by so doing they are providing work for the Post Office–which could use the revenue.

That aside, I’d like to look at the use of “fair share” in the second paragraph. First, the reference in both places is to a community–not people. A slight difference, true, but a difference none the less. It apparently takes a community to receives its fair share of government largess. No reference is made to individuals or small disadvantaged groups getting their “fair share.” After all, that would be divisive and intolerant. Instead, we are told that communities receive this so that they can then benefit “you and your neighbors.” In fact, these are for things that we “need.” See, we can’t live without the good old government programs.

Of course, this is very much the way the federal government likes it to work. In brief, here is an ideal system: I work and earn money, from which the federal government takes a generous helping of cash. The federal bureaucrats then dole out the cash to various state and local governments. These entities are also run by bureaucrats–who are largely more intelligent than you and I. They decide who gets what and why they get it.

It is quite revealing that the letter says absolutely nothing about the constitutional mandate for the census, which is as follows:

[]An Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.[]

The letter also says nothing about the original point of the enumeration–which is to ensure that representatives are allocated in accordance with population.

Let me say very simply. I do not want my community to gets its fair share. I do not want to get my own trickle down fair share. I do want to keep the share that I work for and use that to provide for my wife, my children, my parents–and those who may not have that which I do. I would like to do this without interference from the government. I would like to do it through my church, my family, my friends and acquaintances. I would like to use just enough middle men to ensure that those I’m helping do not usually know who is doing the helping. I do not want to do this by giving my earnings to the government and trusting that they will do better things with them than I would.

One last point. The government funds talked about in the letter? Those aren’t properly the property of the government. Everything the government “owns” is held in trust for the citizens. Of course, putting it out that the government has funds for all of the communities makes it out as a loving father, or perhaps a wealthy uncle. Unfortunately, it has already broken our grandchildren’s piggy banks, as it were, to fund a number of enormous future liabilities.

Remember, if you don’t fill out the census correctly, a bureaucrat somewhere will lose his wings.

Share

Hide Sites

It would appear that we have an answer to a question I posed a yesterday, after Representative Herseth Sandlin was invited to meet with the President and hear why she needed to get with the program:

[]The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won’t vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn’t vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.

As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won’t vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.

“I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.”[]

Sounds good to me. Let’s give Representative Herseth Sandlin credit for sticking to her previous position in light of the fact that nothing has really changed in the interim–except certain people’s desires to make this happen no matter what it might do to hurt (as well as help) the general citizenry.

Share

Hide Sites

While it is difficult to know the precise motivations which supported her “No” the last time around, it would appear that the pressure to say “Yes” is reaching maximum:

[]President Barack Obama invited Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and nine other House Democrats to the White House Wednesday night where the president tried to convince them to vote for the latest version of his health care initiative.[]

Calling it “his . . . initiative” seems to be stretching things a bit. Rather, he took one of the existing bills, mixed it with a bit of special Republican topping and is apparently trying to lay claim to result. But, I digress. The question is, where will Representative Herseth Sandlin be after all of this wooing?

[]Herseth Sandlin on Wednesday praised Obama’s inclusion of Republican ideas but said she has not decided how she would vote on the revamped proposal.

Herseth Sandlin said the earlier House health care bill did not meet the dual goals of increasing access to quality care while cutting costs.

She said she will examine the language of the latest Obama proposal to see if it accomplishes those twin goals.

“There are many details yet to be determined, and as this package comes together, I will closely examine the legislation to determine its effect on South Dakota families, businesses and health care providers,” she said in a prepared statement. “It’s also critically important to understand the impact on the cost of health care going forward.”[]

If she is to be honest, then the latest bill does not meet the goals of “increasing access to quality care while cutting costs” either. Of course, she might just be waffling to ensure that she gets a nice meal at the White House, but I think it unlikely. It is more probable that some dealing is going on right now (and will continue over the next several days).

Unfortunately, I’m concerned that the thinking behind some who are backing this bill (and even some who are not currently, but may in the future) is not unlike the thinking behind electing the first permanently tanned president–they want to be part of something big, something historical, something that just causes people to break out in an updated chorus of “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.”

Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution which would support teaching the world to sing, or providing for massive government interference in the health care economy.

Here is hoping and praying that Representative Herseth Sandlin clearly sees what this legislation would do to her constituents and follows up her previous “No” with a repeat of the same.

Share

Hide Sites

The following video must be watched to be believed. It is discouraging, but it reminds me (at any rate) what the difference is between a lawyer and a non-lawyer.

HT: PowerLine

Share

Hide Sites

A few days ago, I wrote about flood insurance and how it wasn’t really insurance. Now, it appears it is not even a government giveaway:

The federal flood insurance program has dried up just days after FEMA was in South Dakota urging homeowners to buy it because of the threat of flooding. Congress failed to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, so it expired Monday.

The National Flood Insurance Program is essentially the only place anyone can buy flood insurance. Almost every local insurance agent across the country use the program to cover homeowners during a flood.

As noted previously, the reason that the government is “essentially the only place anyone can buy flood insurance” is simple: only our government is going to underwrite a sure loss.

Here is the other problem with the flood insurance program–what the government gives, the government may take away. Right now, the government has taken it away. It may well give it again later–when Senator Bunning is satisfied that the Congress is not spending even more money it does not have, but I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it.

Share

Hide Sites

I was previously unaware that a sitting member of the US Senate had been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. It would appear that Senator Bunning of Kentucky is such a man. He came under fire this week because of his refusal to let an extension of unemployment benefits be voted on unless the cost of the bill was to be offset elsewhere.

Some folks are quite unhappy with his actions:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) should be ousted from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his block on extending unemployment benefits, according to a group that advocates for the unemployed.

The benefits expire Sunday.

“The most obscene thing he can do is prevent jobless Americans from getting their $350 a week unemployment check,” Rick Sloan, acting executive director of Ur Union of Unemployed, a grass roots organization for unemployed Americans, told The Hill.

Hear that? The senator is “preventing jobless Americans from getting their … check.” It would appear that the speaker of the particular quote does not understand that there is no ownership in the equation. If the employers paid unemployment insurance premiums (taxes by another name) to cover those who became unemployed, it was done so with the understanding that the benefits would expire after a given time (and generally at the point where the premiums dollars were used up).

Now, while I may object to the means by which unemployment payments are made, I understand that they are done so in accordance with current law. There is, however, no requirement that the payout term which is to expire tomorrow be extended.

All of that aside for a moment, there is this little thing called “paygo” which is short for “pay as you go.” You and I understand it in the context of spending the money which we have. Congress is to do the same based on some rules on which the members recently agreed. Therein lies Senator Bunnning’s  argument. He believes that this bill could be passed–as long as the money for doing so is found elsewhere and the paygo rules are followed. The sticking point–there are a number of exceptions to paygo. One simple one (by comparison with some of the other exceptions) is that the rules may be suspended in an emergency.

Of course, this means that all one has to do is wait for anything to become an emergency and then paygo is bypassed and spending continues without regard to actual funds on hand.

Everyone has known for months that the unemployment benefits–which have already been extended once or twice–were to run out tomorrow. Why is the vote on this only coming up now? Couldn’t one see a few weeks ago that the economy was unlikely to make itself so much better in the short term that unemployment numbers would drop precipitously–negating the basis for more benefits?

So, keep in mind as you read about the heartless Senator Bunning that he is trying to (much like years ago) play by the rules. Here is hoping that some of his fellows will follow his lead in this regard.

Share

Hide Sites

In honor of the summit today, I thought it would be of benefit to have a few views of the situation from some of the voices on the conservative/libertarian side of things:

Legal Insurrection thinks that the summit is indicative of the “fight coming to a head” and thinks that:

Obama’s plan is neither a starting point nor an endpoint. It is a dead end of government expansion paid for with borrowed money and developed through a process in which Democrats have refused to consider alternatives to bigger government.

His encouragement to Republicans? Don’t be bullied.

Melissa Clouthier calls the summit a “power play” on the part of the President:

The President will get up in front of Republicans and say that they’re obstructionist. The President will make bold statements that force grin-and-bear-it Democrats to go along to get along.

Her encouragement for Republicans? This isn’t about you.

Heritage (via Conn Carroll) finds that this summit is a bit of a sham:

That means the White House must convince a sizeable chunk of conservative Democrats to switch their votes. Brown University political scientist James Monroe says that is the true purpose of today’s event: “House Democrats have told Obama, ‘Move the needle on public opinion,’ and that’s what this is about.”

His encouragement to Republicans? A majority of Americans are not in favor of any of the Democrat’s proposed plans for changing the health care system.

Michelle Malkin is covering things live. Here are her comments (and realtime video of the unfolding events).

CATO is also doing live coverage with full audience interaction.

Whatever the outcome of today’s discussion, I’ll make the following prognostication: The President will claim victory, the Democrats will claim victory and the Republicans will claim victory.

Share

Hide Sites

Despite a growing need for sustainable markets for ag products, the old way (direct payment to farmers and agribusinesses from the US Treasury) is still preferred:

The first phase of the program involved payments for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of renewable biomass delivered to local plants. The next phase will pay farmers to grow the crops in areas close to biorefineries. People have about two months to comment on the proposed rule.

Thune says biofuels can help the U.S. reach energy independence while at the same time creating economic opportunities for growers.

Biofuels might be able to help us–but we’ll never know as long as we continue using taxpayer’s funds to prop up the system, since the incentive to get off such life support is not part of the equation. I’m sorry to see that Senator Thune is pushing this–while understanding that he is very popular with agribusiness and alternative fuels folks for doing so.

The issue is simple: Government has no business taking taxes from one person and then turning around and handing them to another (unless some one has been convicted of a crime and the monies are being used for restitution) no matter how beneficial the activities of the receiving person or entity may be to the community. There are legitimate uses for taxes by a government, but this is not one of them.

When it comes to new uses for biomass, I believe that the market can figure out if it is feasible and viable–without putting the taxpayers on the hook for subsidies which never seem to die.

Here’s more detailed look at the context of the proposed rule (though not the rule itself).

A quick search at http://www.regulations.gov did not turn up the particular rule, though I understood it to be accessible via that site. I’ll look again later when I have more time.

Share

Hide Sites

I hit this in one of those tweet thingies, but it really should get a full post. In a recent speech which Dennis Prager made to Republican members of Congress, he included the following remarks:

John Rosemond, who writes books on child rearing, says that the most important vitamin you can give to a child is Vitamin N, his term for the word “No.” You have given America Vitamin N.

America needs it terribly because of another way in which God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness in human history: Every change for good must be constantly renewed, but changes for the worse are often permanent. Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over. That is why every American generation has to be inculcated with American values. But once the change for bad is made, it is close to irreversible. The Democratic attempt to vastly expand the state’s power would likely be a permanent change for the worse in American life. When they’re candid, they admit that the health care bill is their way to get to single-payer medicine and, more importantly, to a government takeover of another sixth of the American economy.

“Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over.” If that’s not a explanation of the struggle against entropy, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one. He’s right on. It is not impossible to change for the better, but it is so very much harder.

If I’m addicted to Vicodin, for example (and no, I am not) it is very easy for me to feed that habit. It is so very very hard for me to break the habit once hooked. There is one thing even easier than feeding that habit: not starting it to begin with.

If the Congress and the President are permitted to hook everyone on universal health care, it will be easy to keep that going (despite all of the damage the addiction will cause to people, the practice of medicine, the economy over all and personal freedoms); it will be very hard to ever break the addiction. Therefore, the much better approach is to not start at all. If that requires massive doses of Vitamin N, then that’s how it is.

Now, just a brief quibble about “how God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness.” God is not the one who brought sin into the world, ensuring that entropy would be with us until the end of time. For that, we can thank our great-many-times-over-grandparents.

HT: Maggie’s Farm

Share

Hide Sites

Not too long ago, I had a few thoughts on part of Paine’s Common Sense which included delving into just how many people are represented by a single member of the US House of Representatives today vs in 1790. Now, someone is looking at related matters and wondering what the US would look like if the 50 states each had roughly the same population (so as to balance out the electoral college once again).

Here’s the skinny, but you should go to the source to get more information:

On a scale of probability, this is little more than an interesting exercise for cartophiles, but it does show the remarkable disparities in population.

Share

Hide Sites

It’s confession time. I don’t watch football. I’ll probably find out about the score of the Super Bowl via some rss feed update. So, one could say I’ve got no team at all in this fight:

Forget health care and terror, President Obama is tackling an even bigger problem — the legality of the college football Bowl Championship Series.

The series has garnered loads of criticism over the years because teams are chosen to compete in the championship game by a subjective rating system, rather than by a series of playoffs games.

I realize that there are many who may be among those critical of the current system. Nonetheless (and I almost said “let me be clear”) this is not government’s business. If the colleges and or/the fans wish to express their displeasure, they may do so by voting with their feet. Or, if they really wish to address it in a somewhat political fashion, then how about taking a leaf (pun intended) from the TEA party playbook and expressing their displeasure in person and in groups to those who make the decisions about this?

Maybe they could even have a GATORADE party, or something. Hmm. That might only work for Florida.

I believe you get the point. Are we become a nation which cares more that a big stick is brought to bear on those running a sports competition than we are that other countries will very soon be beating us with a big stick economically–if they are not already doing so?

Government is feeling increasingly like a nanny who is nearly incapable of doing anything of value, but believes herself to be properly productive when she manages to quash any and every activity on the part of her charges.

HT: JammieWearingFool

Share

Hide Sites

We’ve seen all sorts of arguments for and against the health care reform bills. Here’s the only basis needed for not including the mandate that everybody must buy health insurance:

Democrats who assume it is constitutional to make it mandatory for Americans to purchase health insurance should answer some questions:

Would it be constitutional for the government to legislate compulsory calisthenics for all Americans? If not, why not? If it would be, in what sense does the nation still have constitutional, meaning limited, government?

George Will continues:

If Congress does something beyond its constitutional powers, that something does not become constitutional merely by Congress saying it is necessary for this or that.

Exactly. Saying that something is true does not make it so if it false. Does this debate not come down to the question of whether our Constitution even matters? If it does not limit the Congress, then why do we even have it (the Constitution)?

It would be better to repeal the Constitution than to continue to give it lip service as the law of the land while ignoring its prescriptions and proscriptions.

Share

Hide Sites