What's the Problem? Taxes Too Low? Or Spending Too High?

Most of the readers of this blog already know the answer to the question. The real question is, will the less than three minutes it takes to watch this excellent video convince any of your left leaning friends (who think that taxing  the "rich" more can solve the problem) that the country has a spending problem? The only way to get the answer to that question is to circulate this video widely.



As usual, hat tip to Dan Mitchell for posting the video on his terrific blog - International Liberty - where you can read more about this subject. (And just about anything else worth knowing about the country's fiscal woes.)

Note- The professor in this video, Anthony Davies, is no relation to the author of these comments, but he seems almost as clever.

Editor's note: The video on the side bar concerning how much tax it takes to support the spending has been there for many months. It stays there because the goofy ideas it refutes are still being passed around. If you haven't watched it, you should. If you have, you should do so again. And no matter what, you should circulate it as widely as possible.

Portland Citizens Take Themselves for a Ride

Here's an idea. I propose that our local government pass a law that forces some businesses to charge a lot more for their services than their competitors, and do a worse job at the services they provide.

No, not a law that causes that to happen as a side effect. Instead, a law that does so purposely and openly, and plainly explains that the purpose is to favor some competitors over others.

And if you happen to be in one of those businesses who sells a coupon that offers a competitive price and faster service, the fines would be so large that to pay them would put you out of business.

Why do that? Well, it's because certain businesses promise us political support and/or money. You think a law like that is preposterous? You don't like the idea? Tough.

So let's stop the charade, I don't propose a law like that, I merely report it to you as fact. Such a law is being enforced in Portland Oregon against limousine and sedan services who compete with taxi cabs. As a news story in the Weekly Standard has it:

"The Portland city council two years ago put in place regulations that force limousine and sedan services to charge a $50 minimum for rides to and from the airport, and at least 35 percent more than taxis for trips to any other destination. And these transportation companies cannot pick up customers until at least an hour after the customer calls for a ride.

And it gets worse. Daily deal companies such as Groupon and LivingSocial partner with local businesses looking for new customers and offer limited-time specials that allow people to buy goods and services at a discounted price. 

But when two companies offered their chauffeur services at a cut-rate through Groupon in separate months last year, Portland responded each time by assessing fines on every Groupon sold: a total of $635,500 for Towncar.com and $259,500 for Fiesta Limousine. The firms refunded their would-be customers rather than risk going bankrupt."

 The article includes a link to a Huffington Post story that quotes the "surprisingly frank rationale" the Portland officials give for this tyranny. You can read much more about this here, if you have the stomach for it.


But before you direct your anger toward the arrogant imbeciles who made and enforce this law, always remember, the voters put these people in office. And they keep them there.

Some Straight Answers About Cato

As many of you know, The Cato Institute is a public policy think tank that promotes free markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and civil society in general.  They have a very extensive web site which explains that, and a lot of other things, in detail. You can and should visit the site at Cato.org.

Ed Crane is the founder and President of the Cato Institute. I've met Ed at various Cato functions over the years (just to say hello and exchange pleasantries) and he seems to me to be a genuinely nice guy who just happens to have made the promotion of freedom and human dignity his life's work. In my opinion, the world is a somewhat better place because he made that choice.

So when I saw this very short video of Ed explaining some of his philosophy, I knew it was a good thing to share with our readers. His thoughtful answers to a few basic questions, without any over the top rhetoric or other distractions, may answer some of the questions you might have asked him if you were being introduced to Cato for the first time.

The concepts are simple, and I'm a simple guy, so perhaps that's why I've always been attracted to them.

The First Shot in a New Rebellion?

The signs are becoming more clear that some of the states have had enough of the destruction of the US Constitution. There already have been a number of states who have sued the federal government to halt the implementation of certain provisions of Obama-care. A few more states have sued over various other policies concerning immigration and other issues. Several others have informally begun the practice of non-cooperation with the DEA regarding the laws prohibiting the use of certain substances, usually marijuana.

But yesterday one state, Virginia, formally made it state policy to refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of a new unconstitutional US law that essentially revokes the right of  Habeas Corpus.

In fact, as one news release, from the Young Americans for Liberty, has it,
 
"On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act."


It could possibly be the start of something I have thought about for a long time. I have posed the question to myself by asking, "what might happen if some states essentially seceded from the union by ceasing dealings with the over-reaching and rights-violating federal government?"

No blood, no violence. Just a "Keep your money, enforce your own laws, collect your own taxes, and we'll take care of our own business" policy. End cooperation and maybe even formal communication. Would the President send troops? To do what? Shoot the Governors? Imprison all the people?

I think the Congress and the President would blink first. Passive resistance has worked in the past, so it's not as crazy as it first sounds. The USSR was defeated without a shot being fired. Gandhi and Martin Luther King had success using non-violent non-cooperation as well.

If even one state did this, might Congressmen and Senators finally understand what's going on? Might they start to seriously consider the overwhelming debt burden the country is starting to collapse under? Might they take the destruction of the value of the currency seriously then? Do you think this might be a huge issue on the front page of every newspaper in the country? The lead story on every network and cable news show?

So is this the first shot in a new non-military civil war? I for one hope so, even if I'm not predicting it will happen. I'm guessing that plenty of folks might think I'm crazy. Some already do.

But what's crazier, watching the end of our liberties without a whimper? Or lifting a finger, the middle one, to fight for our constitutionally guaranteed rights? Legislators in Virginia have taken the first step even if some of them don't realize it. I'd rather be thought crazy than know I did nothing as the whole thing degenerated into tyranny and chaos.

Feel free to comment about what you think we should do about the situation, if anything.

You Can Learn a Lot From Body Language

Keep your chin up.

El Duce

and

 El Duce Bag

Sorry if I offended anyone,,,,umm,,never mind.