Archive for the ‘Profit? What Profit?’ Category

So yesterday, I was listening to the world’s only living brain donor, Juan Williams, debating with Rick Santelli about the debt ceiling.  True to form, it took Juan all of about a minute to start prattling about the need to raise the debt ceiling and taxes, because we have a “moral obligation” to preserve entitlements, because we have a “social contract” with the recipients. 



and then I saw this at Michelle Malkin

Washington (CNN) – Veteran Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel made an impassioned plea to religious leaders Friday, calling on them to lobby members of Congress and the Obama administration to remember the “lesser of my brothers and sisters” during this weekend’s debt negotiations.

“What would Jesus do this weekend? Or Moses. Or Allah. Or anyone else,” the New York congressman said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I don’t want this book (debt negotiations) closed without the clergy having an opportunity to forcefully express themselves as well as I know they can do.”

Well, Congressman…I’ve read the whole book many times, I missed the part where Jesus said “Pay lots and lots of taxes to Rome, so that Rome can buy the votes of the poor with your tax money (after witholding a significant handling fee, of course).”  No, in the gospels, the charge was always on the individual to act…and that was markedly without a middle man to decide who got the help, in what degree, and to <i>ensure</i> that it would happen, or else.

But then all the translations I own are lacking “The Book Of Bureauocracy”, in which Jesus proclaims that the redistribution of wealth by the government is a noble goal, and that it is ok for government to display open hostility to everything else he said, and those who want to address those things publically.

An oversight, I’m sure.

Read Full Post »

Does anyone else remember this?

The impact from the hurricane is likely to be felt nationwide for months. Some economists suggest that the disruptions could shave at least one percentage point from a fourth-quarter growth rate that most analysts, until the disaster, expected to reach roughly 3 percent.

Moreover, if oil prices remain around $70 a barrel or higher, they could put the Federal Reserve in an increasingly unpleasant position, caught between the desire to keep inflation low and the pressure to prevent an economic downturn.

The storm, which submerged New Orleans after it slammed into the Gulf of Mexico on Monday, crippled substantial portions of the country’s energy infrastructure. In Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, electrical power was out, refineries were drowned, and most of the offshore production of oil and gas had not resumed.

[Emphasis Added.]

I don’t want to help someone else’s oil industry so we can “Become their best customer”. I want our industry to be developing jobs in the oil and gas business here, so no freezes to death while we wait for an electrical grid and transportation that runs on flying unicorn farts and concentrated moon beams.

Electricity didn’t become widespread because the government restricted gaslight while it commanded the development of the next best thing. Electricity became widespread because we already had the technology, which was proven, cheap, and available.

Command economies don’t work. Just ask all the Soviets who died because all of them were busy making tractors for the five-year plan rather than farming.

Work Harder, Comrade. Comrade Michelle Needs More Jimmie Choo Accessories So She Can Feel Proud of Her Country.

Read Full Post »

Yeah, not so much, as noted rocket scientist, chart maker, and shibboleth-slayer Geoff points out for us all.

I’m sorry.  I just can’t afford your lifestyle.  And neither can my kids.

Read Full Post »

“A single lie destroys a whole reputation for integrity” -Baltasar Gracian

I once kept my list of character traits I wanted in a President very simple. Courage of conviction and integrity were at the top of my list. No longer.

In the last election, we had a watershed moment, when the dimmer bulbs and the power hungry of the nation elected a man who brought something to the office we have rarely had before. Audacity. Not the audacity to lead the nation on a course of preservation, which requires telling those who enjoy the entitlements Uncle Sugar hands out that the days of their unchecked rapaciousness is over. Instead, it was the audaciousness to use taxpayer money to buy failing businesses under the premise that they were “Too big to fail”, and expand into health care, because government has done such a bang-up job with the Post Office, procurement, and the “War on Poverty”.

We got not the audacity to look at the world’s petty tyrants and bullies, and let them know that there will be consequences for unrestrained asshattery, but the audacity to stand in foreign cities, and apologize for American Exceptionalism to people who are owed no apology.

We got the audacity not to dare to make both those who cling to their prejudices and those who cling to their victimhood lay down their burdens, and simply be Americans, but instead, the most divisive American President in recent memory, who cannot even bother to pretend to act in such an interest, but instead helps to enshrine such prejudices by admitting to his own, whether insulting Americans by talking about how they bitterly cling to their Bibles and guns, or talking about how the Cambridge police acted stupidly when they did their jobs and hurt the feelings of a friend of his who has made a career of victimhood.

We got the audacity not of a man who could solve the challenges that the country faces today and successfully use the first real opportunity to close the rifts that exist in society today, but instead a man who, lacking any ability to solve problems, instead childishly blames his predecessor whenever his own shortcomings grow too large for him to conceal, and a unmittigated contempt for those who have no desire to import Europe’s failed policies to our shores, punctuated by endless lectures to people who have actually done something with their lives other than run for office.  It would be amusing if it weren’t so damn tragic.

But the audacity that sells us all short?  They audacity with which he tells a lie.  The way that they are so very effortless for him indicates just how much contempt he has for Americans.  Whether it is the importance of passing the spendulous bill to keep unemployment at no more than 8%, or that the health care bill wouldn’t add a single dime to the deficit, or how much he is committed to cutting spending, even a blind and deaf man can see that there is no lie too big for him not to tell.

My list?  It now includes honesty, and integrity.  Two traits glaringly lacking in the current occupant of the Oval Office.  But then, that’s why we have these election thingies, right?

Crossposted at The Hostages

Read Full Post »

Yeah.  I wouldn’t count on that raise just yet.  First of all, you might make enough already, or at least Dim Won might think so:

There simply IS. NO. EXCUSE. for a President of the United States to presume that any citizen owes a duty to the economy, and that a citizen…any citizen can “make enough money”.  But I digress.  Those health care savings for your employer?  Not so much.  SanFranNan told us that we’d have to pass the bill to see what’s in it (an outrage all on its own, but when the current generation wakes up to everything that she and her comrades have stolen from them, there will be a reckoning) and she was right.  There is a new cost to businesses in the bill and its going to hurt.  But now we know what the extra IRS agents are for:

From an RIA publication on 1099s:

The 2010 Health Care Act adds “amounts in consideration for property” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(1)) and “gross proceeds” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(2)) to the pre-2010 Health Care Act categories of payments for which an information return to IRS will be required if the $600 aggregate payment threshold is met in a tax year for any one payee. Thus, Congress says that for payments made after 2011, the term “payments” includes gross proceeds paid in consideration for property or services.  (It will also require 1099s to be sent to Corporations for the first time)

What does this mean?

It means that ANY time a business does $600 or more worth of business with another entity, it will have to issue a 1099 to that entity.  This will cover transactions like rent, purchasing office equipment, catering for meetings, etc.  These forms will have to be matched with existing accounting records, and I’m sure there won’t be any errors or mismatched documents.  And if there were, the IRS is sure to be understanding and generous when dealing with it.  No one will have the added expense of fighting audits and the sticky fingers of Uncle Sugar.  And that doesn’t even count the costs of the accounting necessary to issue and receive these 1099s.

I didn’t think there could be anything worse than being force fed the crap sandwich that is ObamaCare.  I was wrong.  Having to go through and pick the bones out before swallowing is worse.

Read Full Post »

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on, I can’t believe you.”- Freidrich Nietsche.

This week has been notable as much for what the Dhims have had to say now that they have forced their takeover bill through, as it has for all the lies they told leading up to it, and continue to tell us after forcing us to buy this crap sandwich.

First up, from the “Now the Truth Can Be Told” file, we have John Dingel (D) of Michigan speaking this week on The Voice of the Great Lakes, WJR.

“Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” -John Dingell

Well, he is right.  They have taken a long time to put their socialist agenda into legislation.  But then, without instrumentalism, they never would have managed to get it all, and the idea that what is your is yours and what is someone else’s is yours is like rust.  It never sleeps, and given enough time and inattention, it can consume a good thing.

What?  There is no socialism?  That’s crazy talk?  Wow.  I guess someone should hurry up and tell the Wrong Reverend Sharptongue.

Now, normally I disagree with the Wrong Reverend, but I think he gets this half-right.  I think that Obama is a socialist, and I think that he wanted to be more open about it during the campaign, but he knew he would have far less of a chance of getting elected by stating directly that he was going to impose a tyranny of mediocrity upon this country than if he spoke indirectly about fundamentally changing this country, and vague platitudes about  “hope and change”.  Still, even so, he still slipped and gave us a window into what he was really thinking, which resulted in the “Joe the Plumber” moment, which required the presstitutes to work hand-in-hand with people in the state government who were more than happy to release information that wasn’t theirs to release so they could smear the man who tripped up the most brilliant legal scholar ever to occupy the Oval Office. 

I think the Wrong Reverend knew what we were getting when the least experienced man ever to hold the office was swept into office on a tide of euphoria brought on by white guilt, the naive belief in a post-racial president, and people who wanted desperately to believe in a new, transparent way of politics without corruption and secrecy.  I just don’t believe that everyone who participated in rolling that tide believed we would get what we have today.

“But it’s Al Sharpton!”  you say.  “That clownshoe is an embarrassment to any person of color who doesn’t want to be a victim, or rely on the assistance of government.  How credible is he?”

I understand completely.  How about a U.S. Senator telling us what this was really all about?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Senator Max Baucus:

“This is also an income shift. It’s a shift, it’s a leveling to help lower income Americans. Too often in the last couple of three years, the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much. The wealthier are getting way, way too wealthy.  Wages have not kept up with the increased income of the highest income Americans. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution income in America, because health care is now a right for all Americans and because health care is now affordable for all Americans.” – Senator Max Baucus (D).

Nevermind that sound.  It’s just the collective wail of the Founding Fathers, screaming “What gives any government official the right to determine if some one makes too much or not enough???”

In fact, I think I see Jefferson now, pouring over his drafts of the Declaration of Independence, muttering “I’m positive I did not write “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the confiscation of other people’s property if government thinks they have too much.”

All kidding aside, taking from one to give to another, in whatever form you chose to manifest it…socialism, communism, marxism, simply was not contemplated as an acceptable role of government. 

How do I know?

Aside from their rightful and manifest aversion to government interference in the lives of the citizenry, you need only read the words of the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There would be no need for such a measure if people’s property was government’s to do with as it pleases, and government doing what it pleases with everyone’s things is pretty much the working definition of the -isms that we are dealing with.  And of course, the people under such a system would have no need for rights independent of the government, so the Ninth Amendment would be pointless.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think it is past time to remind these thieves and robbers that when they cannot be bothered to respect the law of the land, then they no longer have the consent of the governed.

Read Full Post »

I had to fight to urge to spit when this evil socialist hag had the nerve to categorize the passage of the Health Care Takeover of 2009 2010 as honoring to the Declaration of Independence and the Founders of this nation.  I don’t think I could ever get hit in the head enough confuse an increase in dependence on government as “Honoring” the Charter of our Freedom and the men who set our rights to paper.

Of course, I say this with the full understanding of the fact that rights aren’t really rights if I have to rely on government shaking me and my fellow citizens down to provide them.  “Rights” are rights if they would exist without government.  Government can take rights away, but they cannot “give” them to me.  My rights come from God.

Of course, this means judging on both what we have seen and heard.  I have made my judgement.  The Constitutional Scholar who “loves this country” so much that he has to “fundamentally change” the relation between the government and us by growing the debt to unsustainable levels, making we the people purchase health insurance, and taking over one-sixth of our economy doesn’t love this country.  He loves what he wants to make it.

I can’t look the other way while he and his fellow travellers usurp power they were never meant to have, and do so while proclaiming it to be for our own good.  Like many of my friends who served this nation in uniform, I also took an oath, and it also requires me to support the Constitution of the United States.

I will oppose these actions with every fiber of my being.  I will do everything I can peaceably, and if they remain determined to subvert the law and enslave the people of this nation, then I too, will have to remain resolute.

“General Welfare” means for everyone’s benefit, not for a few people’s benefit.  You don’t decide to fix something for a few by changing it for everyone, and then sticking us all with the bill.  Especially not for something that is not for the federal government to act upon at all.  The Ninth and Tenth Amendments could not be more clear. 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For too long, the Federal Government constantly pushed the envelope of its power through the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare clause, with nary a shove back from the people or the individual states.  Indeed, one might think that the Civil War abolished these amendments.  However, if mandating that you must buy government approved health insurance, as part of a scheme that can only end with private carriers going out of business and leaving the government as the sole provider of health insurance coverage is a legitimate exercise of the power granted to the federal government, then the Ninth and Tenth Amendment mean nothing

Those who actually know what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mean have no intention of letting these people fundamentally change the only free nation on earth.  We were unconvinced by the lies peddled leading up to this vote.  We will remain unconvinced when you tour this country trying to sell us what you already bought for us, like hucksters of old selling stock in the Acme Barn Door and Widget Oil Company.  We will remain unconvinced when you pack up your offices and go back to your home districts, praying you will be granted anonymity.

My Triumph Over The Peasants Is Complete!

Thanks to ACE, via Nice Deb.

Read Full Post »

From the National Review:

This week, the Obama administration announced it will create a new poverty-measurement system that will eventually displace the current poverty measure. This new measure, which has little or nothing to do with actual poverty, will serve as the propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth.”</blockquote>

The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that “the poor will always be with you,” no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms.

I guess that the Founders had it wrong. It isn’t about equality of opportunity; its about equality of condition.

These are dangerous games he is playing…

Read Full Post »

A letter from the governor of Idaho to business owners in Oregon and Washington inviting them to leave the rising taxocracies of Oregon and Washington.

Just last week when discussing some of the Washington Legislature’s new tax proposals with my boss, I said “You know, if I was the governor of Idaho, I’d make a pitch for Oregon’s and Washington’s businesses.”

Apparently, Butch Otter has one hell of a sense of hearing:


By Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter

It’s true that a rising tide lifts all boats. But how those boats are handled makes a big difference when the tide is out and the waters get rough.

State governments across the country are dealing with the continuing national recession in different ways. In Idaho, our focus is on stability. Predictable tax and regulatory policies are what our employers need in order to maintain their operations through this rough patch, and it’s what employers elsewhere are looking for when they consider expanding or relocating.

Other states, however, have chosen some interesting and in my view counterproductive approaches. Last month, for example, Oregon voters approved their legislature’s decision to raise taxes on the wealthy and on many businesses by $727 million. The immediate result was that my phone started ringing – and so did phones over at our Department of Commerce. It seems that word has spread about our Project 60 initiative, and that we are open for business, including theirs!

The businesses that have called are emotional about this subject, and they have every right to be. Rising costs – especially during a recession – could put some employers out of business, or at least prompt layoffs. More than 2,000 Oregonians joined a Facebook group to protest the tax increase and commiserate about the repercussions. No less an Oregon business icon than Nike’s Phil Knight calls it “Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law II.”

Legislators in the state of Washington are talking about even bigger tax increases to tackle a budget deficit that figures to be as big as Idaho’s entire State budget. Businesses in both states are like those in Idaho; they are facing the most challenging times in decades, and even incremental cost increases can mean the difference between surviving and closing up.

The problem in Oregon is that folks were convinced that state government was what needed to be shored up rather than the jobs- and revenue-producing private sector for which state government is supposed to work. As a result, they’re chasing some of their cash cows to the border. And I welcome those businesses with open arms.

We now are reaching out to hundreds of Oregon businesses, and will do the same with those in Washington if the legislature there follows Oregon’s lead. We aren’t offering many bells and whistles, but what we can offer is a business-friendly State government, a highly qualified and motivated work force, and communities where people understand that while government cannot be the solution to their problems it can and must be a champion for their own solutions.

Businesses small and large are the backbone of Idaho’s economy. They employ our citizens, who in turn can provide for their families. Businesses and individuals also pay reasonable taxes that enable State and local governments to provide such essential services as public schools and public safety. And make no mistake: Any business that doesn’t pass along its operating costs to consumers – including their tax bills – doesn’t stay in business for long.

Of course, Oregon businesses can choose to accept their higher tax burden, and many will. After all, I understand that the quality of life over there is pretty good. But they have nothing on Idaho in that regard.

For those Oregon businesses facing a decision about whether to lay off employees or close their doors entirely, I have a proposal: Move to Idaho. The Tax Foundation rates our corporate tax burden at 17th in the nation, compared to Oregon’s ranking of 31st. Our individual tax burden is lower, too. Those kinds of numbers can make a real difference to a bottom line.

For Oregonians reading this: Find the best Idaho community for your business by visiting us online at http://www.gemstateprospector.com. Or call our Department of Commerce toll free at 1-800-842-5858 for details about available land, buildings and incentives.

I’ll continue to share information wherever I can about Project 60 and our business-smart state. Find out what so many folks already know – Idaho is a great place to live, to work, and to create career-path jobs and opportunities.


Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter will issue his Project 60 Update monthly, providing information about ongoing job growth and business expansion throughout Idaho.

The Democrats in Olympia aren’t much different than the ones in D.C. Cutting government isn’t an option for them. They’d rather destroy the economy with taxes and class warfare.

Read Full Post »

The Red Hides the Blood Nicely, Doesn't It?

As many of you know, I have recently taken up the “hobby” of “dialogue” with some left-leaning bloggers. While punching myself in the face until I pass out might be a more productive use of my time, I do enjoy the exchanges, especially when the other side inadvertently slips and reveals what they really think. More often than not, however, I find many of the approaches they take to subjects based in false premises, which they will defend with their dying breaths because they are convinced that the outcome makes the means just.

One such example is the latest post from Hippie Prof, a midwest professor who is self-admittedly wrapped up in contradictions, yet stubbornly convinced that the left has the answers, despite ample proof to the contrary. His latest post is a leftist parable about two veterans, both single amputees, who have very different ideas about the welfare state, and yet, he would have us believe, the ‘conservative’ contradicts himself on the issue of handicapped parking spaces. The point of the story is that while conservatives believe that charity is the responsibility of the individual, there is simply too great a need for the individuals to meet. If you like smarmy condescension in your unrepentant political propaganda, then by all means, check it out. Otherwise, you can thank me later for sparing you the not so thinly veiled pro-Obamareidpelosicare piece.

The reason I chose to write about it at all is an assertion that has been floating around on the some of the left-leaning sites I frequent for a while now, handily encapsulated in this excerpt:

Lefty: Sometimes those of us who have more need to give some of what we have to those of us who have less. It is the right and moral thing to do….

Righty: Don’t talk to me about “right and moral” things! I give away plenty of my money to charity – but on a volunteer basis, and I donate my time too! It should be my choice to do that – it is not up to the government to do it for me!

Lefty: You may give to charity – but charity alone is never enough. The need always exceeds what people are willing to give voluntarily. Do you think that people would give enough to cover the need?

Lefty’s brand of hand-wringing tripe sounds familiar. Wait…it will come to me…YES!!!:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.  -Karl Marx

Yes, our moralist sounds exactly like the author of millions of death warrants, one of Communism’s Founding Fathers, and an inspiration to power-mad, bloody-minded megalomaniacs everywhere. 

It should go without saying that a philosophy that has killed millions, and enslaved millions more being portrayed as “moral” gets my hackles up. 
From the Webster’s Encyclopeadic Dictionary of the English Language:

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
9.the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10.the embodiment or type of something.
11.morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

The idea that charity should be accomplished through government is about as wrong-headed as it could be.  One need only look to government’s stunningly successful track record.  Nearly forty years fighting a “War on Poverty” that hasn’t made any significant change in the percentage of people living in poverty in this country despite government taking billions of tax dollars from We The People and giving it to “the poor”, minus a not-insignificant-handling-fee, of course.  Then there is the much longer term success story that is Social Security, truly one of the greatest pyramid schemes in history, that is a scant few years from collapse, due to government’s inability to refrain from spending every dollar that comes through its hands, and the fact that it created a sense of entitlement in every generation that was forced to pay into it (unless you were born after 1970, in which case government doesn’t give a damn what your expectations might be.  You’ll pay much more than previous generations, and you had better plan on working longer just to keep a comparable amount of take home pay over your life time…oh, and you get nothing.)  How about Medicare?  Not only has this “entitlement” cost the American taxpayer BILLIONS in fraud and waste, but it actually limited senior citizens’ health care insurance options and treatment choices, because no private insurer would continue to carry them on their rolls when the government would do it for “free”.  Of course, just like anything else in a command economy, the government also dictated the prices it would pay.  Because the providers are free agents, many could, and did refuse Medicare patients because they didn’t see fit to reduce their bottom-line and deny their families the fruits of their labors, forcing patients to see providers who often have less skill, more patients, and fewer treatment options.  And now they want us to let them do it to everyone.  They demand it.

Because speech after speech after speech after speech after speech from the Left’s Silver-Tongued Messiah™ has failed to convince the American People that giving government more control over their lives is a good idea, and the endless lectures from the Great Condescender™ (same player, different hat) have failed, they have turned to the most despicable technique yet.  They are attempting to make it a moral imperative.

Let’s take it at face value:  It is right conduct for a government to take more and more from one group of people (let’s call them the haves) so that it can provide for the needs of another group (let’s call them the have nots).  Now when an individual or a group of individuals decide to help people out of a sense of compassion and donate their time or their money to help those less fortunate, it is called charity.  The individual or group exercises their freedom to decide who they are going to help, and to what degree.  That is only fitting.  It is their money and it is their time and frequently they make real strides towards independence a condition of the charity.

When government decides to help the less fortunate, it is called welfare.  It is given on criteria that the government decides, in the amount that government decides, to those whom the government chooses, for as long as it chooses.  It is done with our money, and it uses perverse incentives to break up the family structure and increase dependence on government.  And because of the empowerment of politicians that comes through this dependence, there is never any incentive for it to stop.  It can, and has increased spending over the years, further increasing the amount of taxes charged to pay for it, and the liability of the taxpayer to pay for what government borrows so it can avoid ending it.

Now there is a word for when someone takes something that is yours from you without your consent by intimidation or violence…


Robbery is : 

the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

“But BiW”, I can hear you say “It isn’t felonious when government does it.”

Just because the government does something doesn’t make it legal.  The government does illegal things quite frequently.  And while you can search high and low in the Constitution, you will not find “Providing for the needy” anywhere in it.  Yes, I know there are two references to Congress’ power to provide for the “general welfare”.  I can also read, and I have read the Federalist Papers.  Madison never would have agreed with the leftist contention that the “General Welfare” clause authorized Social Security, Medicare, and other programs.  Hamilton was a little freer in his interpretation, but he also envisioned a strong federal government, in opposition to many of the other Founders.  Having said that, I am convinced that he would be horrified, both at what is already in place, and at what government proposes, and even he too realized that there were limits, and it was within the purview of the people themselves to determine what those limits are:

“But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the NECESSITY and PROPRIETY of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. “ –Hamilton, The Federalist #33

We all have needs.  But when the government is empowered to determine the extent of the needs of some, and to take from others without limit or reservation to in order to “meet” those needs, it has gone too far.  When “the needy” represent a class dependent upon government rather than on itself, and government provides for this class and actively seeks to increase the size and scope of dependency on the government to the detriment of the majority of its people, it not only squanders its legitimacy, by dutifully ignoring the consent of the governed, it purposely vicitmizes one class of citizen for the supposed benefit of another, voiding the concept of equality under the law.  By formulating such “charity” and enforcing participation through the use all mechanisms available to it, government robs some citizens and gives some of what it takes to others.  There is nothing “moral” about that.  In  fact, if we were talking about anyone else doing it, we would also be talking about arrest and prosecution for it.

Government exists to protect the property of its citizens.  If this were not true, we would not have the body of contract law that we do; there would be no point.  Contracts, by their very nature, presume the exchange of something of value to the parties, for them to benefit by.  If this were not so, then there would be no incentive to enter into a contract.  Welfare as we know it has no general benefit.  It does not increase the security of all.  It does not make the nation stronger.  It does not preserve society.  It simply empowers those in government who would give it to some at a cost to others, while increasing the size and power of government.  This not a lawful or proper aim of government, and while it may help those who direct it to feel moral about their actions, there is nothing noble or right about limiting the achievement of those it takes from, or making a judgement that they should share through government’s auspices.  In addition, it does nothing to empower or uplift the recipient; indeed, the only one empowered in the whole transaction is government.

Still, I suppose that I should be happy for the progress that they are making.  Now they are trying to convince me that this is a moral imperative based on their morals, and not mine.  Of course, it helps to have some ready answers when a non-Christian tries to tell you that Christ would be in favor of the Health Care Take Over™.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »