"Dick" Durbin's Enemies List

AUGUST 9, 2013 9:00AM

Cato Makes Dick Durbin’s Enemies List

By ILYA SHAPIRO

As reported on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and picked up by the Chicago Tribune among many others, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has been sending out letters to anyone he has determined to have funded the American Legislative Exchange Council since 2005. He wants to know these supporters’ position on “stand your ground” laws, which ALEC (a group of state legislators pushing center-right reform ideas) advocated around the country.

After Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida—which had passed a stand-your-ground law before ALEC started pitching its model legislation—liberal activists pressured ALEC’s corporate donors to cut their ties with the group (never mind that “stand your ground” didn’t play a role in George Zimmerman’s trial for Martin’s death), which is partly why ALEC closed its task forces on non-economic issues.

Durbin smelled blood in the water and, continuing his rampage against corporate political speech—pretty rich for someone who inserted a consumer-unfriendly provision into Dodd-Frank at the behest of Walgreens and other large retailers in his home state of Illinois—is now seeking to shame anyone ever associated with ALEC.

That includes Cato. Earlier this week, we received a letter from Durbin asking two questions (you’ll have to pardon the awkward grammar; this went out to hundreds of groups, so Durbin’s staff apparently had no time for proofing):

• Has Cato Institute served as a member of ALEC or provided any funding to ALEC in 2013?
• Does Cato Institute support the “stand your ground” legislation that was adopted as a national model and promoted by ALEC?

And, by the way, Durbin wants recipients of his polite inquiry to know, “I plan to convene a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights to examine ‘stand your ground’ laws, and I intend to include the responses to my letters in the hearing record. Therefore, please know that your response will be publicly available.”

Well, I’m proud to say that Cato isn’t going along with this charade.  Our president John Allison has responded to Durbin with a letter that I’ll quote in its entirety:


Dear Senator Durbin:

Your letter of August 6, 2013 is an obvious effort to intimidate those organizations and individuals who may have been involved in any way with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). 

While Cato is not intimidated because we are a think tank—whose express mission is to speak publicly to influence the climate of ideas—from my experience as a private-sector CEO, I know that business leaders will now hesitate to exercise their constitutional rights for fear of regulatory retribution.

Your letter thus represents a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is a continuation of the trend of the current administration and congressional leaders, such as yourself, to menace those who do not share your political beliefs—as evidenced by the multiple IRS abuses that have recently been exposed. 

Your actions are a subtle but powerful form of government coercion.

We would be glad to provide a Cato scholar to testify at your hearing to discuss the unconstitutional abuse of power that your letter symbolizes.

Sincerely,
John Allison

As John said, Cato is in the business of speaking truth to power—the more and better we do it, the more we advance liberty and the more our donors like us—so playing pen-pal with crusading senators is par for the course. But what about those who don’t have Cato’s mission or independence, whose livelihood depends on being in the good graces of a regulator who understands the way political winds blow? (Heck, we’re all beholden to the IRS; I apologize, honey, if we get audited next year.)

This is unacceptable. Senator Durbin, care to invite me to testify at your little hearing? I rather enjoyed discussing Citizens United at the kabuki theatre you ran last year—though you seemed more interested in accusing me of being a pawn of the Koch brothers (with whom I have no beef, but who were actually suing Cato at the time)—and would be happy to have another tete-a-tete with my fellow University of Chicago Law School alum.

In the meantime, Cato will certainly stand its ground.

The above letter is reprinted here by permission of the Cato Institute.

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.

Putting a Match to the Leaves We Raked in 2011

As the final leaves fall off the 2011 tree, it's time to jump into the pile and make a few observations about what we raked up here at WhatWeThinkandWhy this past year.

I'm fairly certain that almost everyone who reads this blog was irritated (at a minimum) with something I wrote or something I posted in the sidebar this year. It's not surprising since I picked on Democrats and Republicans with almost equal relish.

Okay, I picked on Democrats more, but only because they are the ones who have made the most progress in the war on freedom lately. Republicans, who regularly fail at whatever they try to do, haven't been able to accomplish that part of their agenda recently. In that regard, gridlock in 2011 was a wonderful thing.

The so called "progressives" (most of whom decided they don't want to be called "liberals" anymore after their stepchildren Fannie and Freddie were shown to be the biggest cause of the housing bust and the ensuing financial chaos) took as much of an intellectual beating on this site as my old brain could muster. But so called "conservatives" who, like their hero GWB, are not really conservatives at all, also got pounded whenever I got the chance. People like Mitt Obama were my most aimed at targets, but since there were so many of them, the accuracy wasn't as good as I would have liked.

So let's look back at some topics that were addressed:

In January we took a look at education and Obama-care.

In February it was taxes and hypocritical politicians from the Republican side.  It also was the month that I made the second most popular post this blog has ever published. It was titled I Was Not Trying to Find Paradise, I was Trying to Escape Hell.

In March I beat on Obama a few times (mostly in a lighthearted way) and praised Ike while concentrating on politicians again.

April was a pretty big month during which some of the most viewed posts were made. We poked more fun at Obama, introduced Gary Johnson and the beginning of the Ron Paul candidacy, and then got serious about budget and monetary blunders before ripping Republicans again. The most important post of the month concerned the imbecilic notion that the country can tax its way out of the debt crisis and featured a terrific video (still appearing on the sidebar) which shows graphically, even to the mathematically and philosophically challenged, exactly why that is so.

May addressed health care lunacy and the issues of social security, medicare and why socialism in general is adolescent. It also was the month when I wrote what I think was my best effort of the year. It was a piece about the childish notions the electorate has come to embrace and why grow-up time is here for sure. It was also the most widely read piece and people from all over the world continue to hit the page almost daily after finding it in a Google search.

June revisited entitlements again and a post about Gary Johnson garnered a ton of interest again as well.

July, August and September are my busiest golf months and most of the posts concerned different politicians and their ideas, good and bad.

October was a month for exposing media incompetence, exploring the goofy OWS movement, and a well read piece about an important issue concerning our rights, capital punishment and the frightening developments in unconstitutional governance. 

November featured a series of interviews with Thomas Sowell, which many of you enjoyed if  private email remarks are an accurate judge. For some reason most of the readers of this blog won't help me out by "voting" in the small polls on the sidebar concerning their enjoyment, or lack thereof, of content in the main section where the posts are found. Oh well, I guess I'll never figure that out. The month also had one of the best received posts of the year. It was titled History, Music and Redemption and people loved the story of the old hymn Amazing Grace. Perhaps it was well received because it lacked any political content.

December wrapped it all up with some videos concerning the Paul candidacy and one important post about how we just lost some of our most important rights. The right of Habeas Corpus was legislatively eliminated. I hope you were alarmed by that piece, but I suspect most people who read it have already relegated the issue to the recesses of their memories. It's hard enough to believe what happened and even harder to keep focusing on it. As a memorable line from a movie went, "Sometimes I think the shit comes down so heavy I need to wear a hat." So we just put on our hats and try to forget news like the post delivered. That's human nature I guess.

In another recent development, I was asked to write for another website on a formal basis and I agreed to do so. The site is The Left Coast Rebel and I have already written a few things for them. That makes three sites (including this one) where my "stuff" is "published."  The Humble Libertarian is the other. So for better or for worse, more people are exposed to my opinions, which are hardly unique, and my writing, which has improved but still remains dreadful on occasion.

A few companies have actually sent me money after reading some of my posts and deciding that having a few links to their sites on old posts that have related content would benefit their clients. That is the reason  for the "Tip Jar" on the sidebar that some of you might have noticed recently.

They paid me via that "Tip Jar" and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you felt led to drop a few bucks in there as well. I'm sure most of you tip bartenders and waitresses far more for far less effort. (I know I do.) Writing and editing this content is a lot more work that it looks like. But since I do this for the love of liberty, the future of my offspring, and the enjoyment it brings to me personally, a few bucks is just an extra kiss anyway. But who doesn't like kisses? The money is just the lipstick on my editorial collar.

The year end is also another opportunity to thank all of the people who helped the site be better than it otherwise would be. Some sent the articles and pictures that ended up as ideas for some of the subject matter and others like Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute and Wes Messamore of the Humble Libertarian  graciously allowed us to re-publish some of their work because of their love of liberty and country.

Special thanks to Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute for giving us the heads-up on published research articles before they become old news. Cato and Heartland are two of the most important and successful organizations ever to dedicate themselves to returning this country to its original intent, partly by exposing the nonsense that passes for contemporary wisdom nowadays. I treasure whatever help I get from them. It is my hope that in some small way I have helped them too.

Lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank my unpaid proofreader for keeping the secret that I can't spell worth a damn and that I make the same punctuation errors endlessly. If my stuff is even partly readable it because of her patience. It's only a part time job for her. Her real job is to be my wife, a much tougher job and one that requires even more patience.

So that's the heap of  "leaves" we raked up here last year. I hope you found value in the content. I hope it made you laugh sometimes and pissed you off sometimes. But mostly I hope you didn't get so pissed off at me that you won't feel led to keep supporting this site. I'm even crazy enough to hope you recommend it to your friends when we rake up something important.

Here's wishing you all the best for the year 2012. It's sure to be one of the most important one in our lives.

Republican Hypocrisy - Down On The Farm

Last month, when the conservative Republican Study Committee released its plan for $2.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years, one enormous item of wasteful government spending was conspicuously missing — farm subsidies.

Perhaps that reflects the fact that 24 of the RSC's 165 members sit on the House Agriculture Committee, the notorious overseer of farm-welfare programs. Total direct government farm payments to the districts of those 24 representatives alone costs taxpayers more than $1 billion per year. Numerous other RSC members hail from farm states, and therefore have a vested interest in protecting payments to their constituents.

We are also seeing the usual quadrennial pilgrimage of supposedly fiscally conservative Republican presidential candidates to Iowa, where they swear eternal fealty to farm subsidies generally, but, even worse, to ethanol subsidies in particular.

Perhaps the most revolting example of this spectacle was former House speaker Newt Gingrich's claim that opposition to ethanol subsidies and mandates stems from "big city" folks who just don't like farmers. But Gingrich is hardly alone.

The level of hypocrisy is breathtaking. For example, conservatives rightly denounced government subsidies to business when the auto industry was at issue. Why, then, are subsidies a good idea when directed to, say, Archer Daniels Midland?

Read the rest of Michael Tanner's article

at Cato.org

Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

This article has been cross-posted to The Humble Libertarian

Credits Could Lead To An Armistice in The School Wars

The only K-12 education I ever received as a child was provided at so called "public" schools. And any failure to become "educated" at those schools falls squarely upon my shoulders, not those of the many fine teachers who worked hard to pound some knowledge and reasoning skills into my thick skull.

Of course there were good classes and bad as well as competent and incompetent teachers but since none of the schools then or now were located in Utopia it was to be expected. I learned at least as many useful life lessons from the bad teachers as the good ones because it was obvious even to a dimwit kid that if you see mistakes being made you try to avoid them yourself in the future. So for me the government schools worked out OK even if I never became a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist.

Some of the better teachers taught me to always question things even if they seemed obvious. And I have spent the rest of my life questioning everything that the majority has already decided was elementary. It makes me a pain in the ass to many of my friends who nevertheless suffer me gladly.

One of the elementary things I have always questioned was the need for "public" schools in the first place. I accepted the given reason for government provided schools was to make sure that those too poor to educate their own children would not have uneducated kids. But what I couldn't figure out was why the government was providing a "free" education even to those who could afford it on their own. (Leave aside for the moment the fact that even though my family had very little money, in my neighborhood even the kids who were way "poorer" than us went to private schools.)

It never made sense to me that just because some people couldn't afford it everyone was provided with a government paid education. Even "rich" people. Why shouldn't the government just give the poor people a subsidy so they could send their kids to the schools all the other people sent their kids to? That way no kid would be left out just because his parents were too poor, lazy, drunk, stupid or some combination of that list. It had to be cheaper to make an education available that way than building lots of schools and hiring duplicate administrators, teachers, custodians and the like.

Back in those days it never occurred to me that perhaps the government schools weren't primarily designed to be for the the purpose of educating poor kids. But back then I was actually in one of those institutions so maybe it wasn't the plan for that to occur to me.

It's only been in the last few decades there has been a lot of debate about this concept so I must not have been the only one to have simple concepts not occur to them. Of course the past debates were/are usually about what gets taught in the schools and other issues, but now that children in this country have fallen so far behind much of the rest of the developed world, folks are starting to debate all kinds of things to remedy that problem. George Will wrote a piece that appeared in today's issue of the Investors Business Daily which addresses that issue with facts and figures and I highly recommend reading it. It can be found here.

In the meantime, the following video has some interesting concepts about how to pay for education and improve it at the same time that haven't gotten too much press coverage from a media obsessed by ever expanding government influence on our lives. You may agree or disagree with the concepts and as always you are encouraged to leave your thoughts on it in the comment section below.

What Rational People Think About The State of the Union Speech And Why

Many have seen the President's State of the Union Speech and the Republican response to it, but not too many have seen a non-political "what we think and why" assessment of it yet. So here is what a group of the most rational people I know of think about it.

Let's All Celebrate Parchment Barrier Day!

You are probably asking, what the heck are you talking about now? I get that a lot when I write these attention getting headlines.

A "Parchment Barrier" was the way the founders of our country described documents such as the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it, the Bill of Rights. (Today they might be referred to as "Paper Tigers" according to Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute.)

The founders knew all along that you can't really enforce these documents if the people who take an oath to defend them decide to ignore them. After all, they have most of the guns and most of the inclination to use them. Having said that, so far in this republic the preferred way of ignoring them has been legal circumvention instead of citizen execution. It's a distinction with a real difference.

The real name of the celebration du jour is Bill of Rights Day. And it's important to remember it on this day so we can try to figure out what went wrong and perhaps how to get back to the original intent of the provisions found in it. I have kicked around the idea of listing the usurpations to our rights for quite a while but, "if you're snoozin' you're losin'" as they say and I slept on it one too many nights because someone beat me to it today.

That person is the above named Tim Lynch and he does it much better than I probably could so I'll just keep my place a block behind the parade and let you read his excellent piece titled simply "Bill of Rights Day" which was published at Cato-at-Liberty this morning.

It is posted below (with the author's permission) in it's entirety for your convenience. Tim provides excellent links in the original article to demonstrate his points.  You may not enjoy having your rights violated but I think you will enjoy the article.
 

Bill of Rights Day

Posted by Tim Lynch

Since today is Bill of Rights Day, it seems like an appropriate time to pause and consider the condition of the safeguards set forth in our fundamental legal charter.

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, insist that they can enact laws concerning television and radio broadcasting, and even pamphlets!

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to keep and bear arms.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is doing well–so we can pause briefly here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches and crotch inspections.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for a public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can take away our property and give it to others who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused shall enjoy a speedy trial, a public trial, and an impartial jury trial. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial. That is why 95% of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment says that jury trials are guaranteed even in petty civil cases where the controversy exceeds “twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines against people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that jailing people who try in ingest a life-saving drug is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are to be reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers are reserved to the states, or to the people.

It’s a depressing snapshot, to be sure, but I submit that the Framers of the Constitution would not have been surprised by the relentless attempts by government to expand its sphere of control. The Framers themselves would often refer to written constitutions as mere “parchment barriers” or what we would describe as “paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that putting safeguards down on paper was better than having nothing at all. And lest we forget, that’s what millions of people around the world have — nothing at all.

Another important point to remember is that while we ought to be alarmed by the various ways in which the government is attempting to go under, over, and around our Bill of Rights, the battle will never be “won.” The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. To remind our fellow citizens of their responsibility in that regard, the Cato Institute has distributed more than four million copies of our “Pocket Constitution.” At this time of year, it’ll make a good stocking stuffer.

Finally, to keep perspective, we should also take note of the many positive developments we’ve experienced in America over the years. And for some positive overall trends, go here. Let’s enjoy the holidays but also resolve to be more vigilant about our liberties in 2011.

Tax Deal - A Mixed Bag

Compared to ideal policy, the deal announced last night between congressional Republicans and President Obama is terrible.

Compared to what I expected to happen, the deal announced last night is pretty good.

In other words, grading this package depends on your benchmark. This is why reaction has been all over the map, featuring dour assessments from people like Pejman Yousefzadeh and cheerful analysis from folks such as Jennifer Rubin.

With apologies to Clint Eastwood, let’s review the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Read more of Dan Mitchell's article
at Cato-at-Liberty.org

Dan Mitchell is a Senior Fellow at The Cato Institute

Filed by Grant Davies

The Strange Marriage of Hillary and Huckabee - Video Version

For many years I have claimed to anyone who would listen that Republicans and Democrats were different sides of the same coin. As you might imagine that proclamation didn't exactly endear me to cheerleaders for either of those supposedly different organizations.

To be sure, there are huge differences between their respective approaches to governance, but I have always maintained that those differences were more along the lines of issues, scope and detail than any philosophical quarrel about whether or not government has the solutions to societal problems.

But now that we have been pulled from the most recent wreckage of the American experiment and are lying in the emergency room instead of the morgue, it seems like an excellent time to examine how the crash occurred in the first place and whether it actually made any difference which group was driving when we hit the wall.

And just when I was pondering how to make the case anew to the rescued occupants without using the old coin analogy, along comes this video from the Cato Institute featuring a presentation to a good sized group of college students by David Boaz the executive VP of that think tank. Many of you are familiar with him from videos posted on this blog and many others. He has, in my opinion, a great talent for explaining things in interesting new ways.

His take on the Hillary and Huckabee "marriage" is entertaining and well worth the time it takes to watch it. It's something to do while we are in the waiting room at our rehab centers as the new election cycle begins with the same old names vying to become our chauffeurs on the next leg of the trip. And he is speaking to the right group. The driver of the future is among them somewhere.

New Employment, of a Sort

My good friend Homer sent me an email a few days ago asking why I hadn't written a piece for my blog in the wake of the Republican semi-tsunami on election day a week ago. He explained that he, like myself, had walked to the polls on election day and he was interested to know my opinion about the results.

While I was gratified that he cared what I thought, the truth was that I wasn't quite sure what I thought. Lots of different ideas about what it meant were bouncing around in the void of my brain cavity but nothing profound was emerging from that black hole so I simply kept quiet for a change. It seemed superfluous to add my two cents to the thousands of other opinions that couldn't be avoided in any media, old or new, so I opted to "let it cook" for a while.

In the meantime I received a job offer, which after ten seconds of deep philosophical contemplation, I accepted. The offer had a catch of course, as everything nowadays seems to. Oh it's a real job for sure, but only in the same way as doing the "lock up" routine at church after all the people have gone home for the night is. And the catch is the same, it doesn't pay a red cent.

So it's a new job, of a sort. And even though I could use the money to defray the cost of the cat food we might be eating in a decade or so (due to the lack of a government pension like most of the "Chicago Way" citizens in these parts receive, and a penchant for spending every available nickle on greens fees), the important "pay" is the chance to make my contribution to the freedom movement more valuable and have a much wider audience for my humble essays than this blog provides. I'm happy to have the chance.

I have never met or talked to my new editors personally so I'm not sure what qualifications they perceived me to have other than a razor thin connection to the Cato Institute and a semi-acceptable level of written communication skills. All I know is the people who write for my new "employer", THL (The Humble Libertarian) blog share the same love of liberty as I and the commitment to do something about it.

I have been given the title of  "Regular Columnist" and my responsibility is to submit articles of interest originating from the incredibly intelligent staff of the Cato Institute for THL's new project named Featured Voices. As many of you know, Cato is arguably the  number one free market think tank in the world, and The Humble Libertarian is an up and coming blog which is exploding across the internet. Many of it's readers are younger future leaders and it is my honor to have an opportunity to speak to them through this contemporary medium.

Which brings me back to Homer's request about my thoughts on the recent election, so here is what I think happened:

The "Progressive" agenda was roundly and loudly rejected.
Large numbers of Democrats were dismissed for supporting Obamacare, government takeovers and bailouts, TARP, pretend stimulus, and threatening huge taxes on energy because of the "global warming" fraud.
The people rejected massive new taxes in the scheme to let the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" expire.
The people are also scared stiff of possible coming hyper-inflation due to the federal reserve policy of printing money to finance huge unpayable government debts and new spending.
The people responded negatively to being called names by arrogant government operatives.
The people voted for the only anti-progressive option available to them.

And here is what I think did not happen:

People did not fall in love with Republicans.
People did not suddenly believe Republicans can fix all the problems they helped to create.
People did not think the economy will immediately turn around just because they repudiated Obama's agenda.
People did not believe that Tea Partiers are racists.

So what now?

My opinion is that we should support Republicans for now, but not embrace them unless/until they become small government constitutionalists.
We should prepare for the next round of primary elections very carefully so we can throw every single big government incumbent Republican off the next slate of candidates.
We should support every single Democrat candidate in the next primary who rejects the loony left vision of an American/European socialist form of government which minds everyone's business instead of supporting the old Democratic ideals of defending the rights of "the little guy."

And as far as what the new Republican majority lower house should do:

Read my first "Featured Voices" contribution on that subject at The Humble Libertarian written by David Boaz of the Cato Institute. It is titled "Tea Party Must Insist, GOP Won On Economy, Now Focus on It."

Wish me luck with my new "job", it may be one of the more important ones I've ever tried.

With All Due Respect Mr.President, We’re Still Waiting

The pictured ad appeared today in many major US newspapers. Many of you do not have access to them and therefore I have taken the liberty of re-posting it here in it's entirety.

It's really part of a series of such ads which the Cato Institute has run in the last few years, and which have been featured on this website. Others can be found here and here if you missed them or just want to refresh your memory about the points they made.

You may agree or disagree with the proposals Cato makes, but the main message is undeniable in my view.  And if political promises were a prize winning category of fictional literature, Obama would have won a well deserved Nobel Prize instead of the nonsensical one he actually was awarded. The ad appears below, or in a PDF format if you prefer. 

"We will go through our federal budget–page by page, line by line–eliminating those programs we don’t need"
                            President-elect Barack Obama, November 2008

With all due respect Mr.President,we’re still waiting.

It’s been nearly two years since you made that pledge, Mr. President. Since then, you’ve signed into law an $800 billion “stimulus” package and a massive new health care entitlement—adding trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to our grandchildren’s tab.

 Our looming debt crisis threatens to destroy the American dream for future generations. Yet your administration continues piling up deficits of over a trillion dollars a year. By 2012 our national debt will be larger than the entire U.S. economy. Isn’t it past time you identified the programs you’d cut?

In all fairness, both parties got us into this mess. “Deficits don’t matter,” Vice President Dick Cheney scoffed as the Bush administration and a Republican Congress led one of the biggest spending sprees in American history, nearly doubling federal outlays over eight years. Our bipartisan flight from responsibility is a national disgrace—and it’s fast becoming a national disaster. Vague promises to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” won’t cut it any more. Both parties need to step up with specific and substantial cuts.

As a start, they can consult downsizing government.org,where the Cato Institute has begun posting the results of our page by page, line by line review of the federal budget. With the Constitution as our guide, we’ve identified scores of agencies to eliminate and programs to zero out, putting America on the path toward fiscal sanity:

Education Subsidies

Education is a state, local, and private matter—and that's where the Constitution left it. Federal K-12 education programs have cost American taxpayers $1.85 trillion since 1965 without noticeably improving outcomes. Eliminating them will save $40 billion annually.

Farm Subsidies

Far from “saving the family farm,” federal agricultural subsidies are environmentally destructive corporate welfare, with more than 70 percent of aid going to the largest 10 percent of agribusinesses. Zeroing out farm welfare will save $25 billion annually.

Military Overreach

The Constitution envisions a U.S. military that “provide[s] for the common defence” of the United States, not one that serves as the world's policeman and nation-builder. By withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we could save at least $125 billion next year. Eliminating other unnecessary overseas missions would allow for a leaner force structure and defense budget, saving at least $100 billion a year without undermining U.S. security.

Transportation Programs

The federal government has no business funding the state and local projects that make up the bulk of federal transportation spending. Federal involvement results in pork-barrel spending, excess bureaucracy, and costly
one-size-fits-all regulations. Moving funding for activities such as highways to the states and air traffic control to the private sector would spur greater innovation while also saving $85 billion a year.

Housing Subsidies

Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. HUD subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn’t afford. Getting the government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually.

Federal Worker Pay

Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts—and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 a year in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10 percent to save $20 billion annually.

Energy Subsidies

The 30-year legacy of federal energy subsidies is replete with corporate cronyism and failed “investments.” Entrepreneurs with their own capital have incentives to develop viable alternative energy sources. Ending federal energy subsidies would save $20 billion a year.

Government-run Health Care

Medicare and Medicaid are driving the explosion in federal debt. The 2010 health care law should be repealed, but the same level of Medicare cost savings can be realized by moving to a consumer-driven health plan through vouchers, which would protect the elderly from government rationing. Medicaid should be converted to a fixed block grant to save money and encourage state innovation. Total savings would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

Drug War

Since the start of the federal War on Drugs in 1970, we’ve spent hundreds of billions on a futile crusade that’s done little to curb drug use and much to impair our civil liberties. In fact, a Cato study showed that Portugal’s decriminalization of drugs actually lowered drug-related problems. Returning drug policy to the states—where it belongs—would save at least $15 billion annually.

Social Security

As the Baby Boom generation retires, our largest entitlement program lurches toward crisis. Social Security should be phased out as a mandatory program and an alternative voluntary system of private accounts, providing for ownership and inheritability, should be offered. Current obligations can be reduced by tying annual benefit growth to price inflation rather than wage growth, saving $50 billion annually by 2020.

Reprinted with permission of the Cato Institute

Oops! I Forgot to Tell You

Actually, I didn't forget to tell you, the Congressional Budget Office did.

What I forgot to tell you was, I was/am a fear monger. What they forgot to tell you was that up to ten million people will be losing their health insurance under Obamacare. And they forgot to tell you a few other things, like what is going to happen to your Medicare.

I guess all the people working at the CBO are a lot like me and others my age. That is to say, they have contracted CRS (can't remember stuff), at least important stuff like the effects of hope and change on your life in the post shame world which has begun since the nationalization of healthcare.

A recent article by Michael Tanner says in part; "during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid."


I have decided to concentrate on recalling my tee times until the golf season is over in order to stay in practice until November, when it will be my sole job to remember to vote. I'm confident a little piece of string for my finger will not be necessary.

The rest of the informative article on this information can be found here if you want to remember the details. Oh yeah, I just remembered something else I wanted to add, the fear mongers were correct, and......I told you so.

Tips for Planning a Party

If you want to have a successful party, you need a few tips to make it the best it can be. In the video below there can be found five quick tips that are common sense and should be helpful if you want everyone to have a good time. I think the tips are so good I'm putting them on the sidebar as an easy reference and future reminder tool.

Who said the party is over? Have fun, but be careful about who you invite!

The State of Slapstick

While chatting with friends recently I mentioned that I would be keeping a long standing personal tradition alive on Wednesday evening by continuing to direct my attention elsewhere while the farcical TV comedy called "The State of the Union Address" was being aired.

I'm not sure if it was appropriately carried on Comedy Central, but if so, it would only be added to the ever lengthening lineup of un-amusing fare crowding out some truly funny stuff found there. Hillary couldn't be bothered to show up, and that is truly amusing.

Calling it an "address" is just being kind. It is a political stump speech for the already elected, and it's almost always boring. Oh, such speeches to joint sessions usually have a few interesting moments, such as last year when one semi-brave (and thankfully rude) US Representative audibly called the President a liar, or this year when a Justice of the Supreme Court did the same thing (albeit a little more tactfully) by mouthing the word "untrue" as the President made claims about the recent partial reinstatement of the first amendment. It should also be noted that the President himself set a new standard in rude-ness when he referred directly to the Court, a no-no in polite politics during an "address".

Meanwhile, over an excellent glass of Pinot Noir with my unpaid editor/proofreader before the speech commenced, we discussed the possibility of breaking the tradition, watching the whole thing, diligently taking notes and writing a compelling report for this blog. As suspected from other experiential evidence, that notion was proof positive that wine has higher alcohol content than desirable for optimal rational thought. After regaining my somewhat dulled none-to-powerful reasoning skills, I demurred.

Instead I have decided to leave the work to real professionals. Below you can view a short round-up of which gags worked and which didn't.

Three Cheers for Rudeness

A mini fire storm has erupted in the media in regards to the rudeness of a congressman who lost track of where he was when he audibly blurted out his opinion of a whopper the President of the United States had just uttered to a joint session of congress.

As if it was a real news story, it is being covered by just about everyone with a keyboard or a TV camera pointed at them.
But the truth is, the rudeness "story" is a purposeful distraction designed by clever spin meisters and then parroted by the dim bulb "reporters",  in a media which seems enamored with changing the subject from the truth (or lack thereof) of what the president said, to how he was called on it.
The story they want you to focus on is all about the loss of civility,  in a society that has been anything but civil since the very beginning of our republic. A check of history yields so many rude attacks on the veracity of various presidents that they are too numerous to cite in this space. And even the arena of the insult isn't particularly rare. The former president, George Bush, was actually booed in that same venue by the very same folks who are righteously indignant this time around.

The (hopefully) soon to be deposed, and ever so polite senate majority leader, Harry Reid, called George Bush "a liar" way back in 2002 in a dispute about moving nuclear waste to his state's Yucca Mountain. And according to a web search, former President Harry Truman, once described Richard Nixon as "a shifty-eyed goddamn liar . . . He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides."
So much for civility in the past. Now, what about the current president?

He has been calling so many people liars lately, (not to mention other names) that I doubt if it even fazed him when the tables were turned, although the congressional joint session "outing" probably caught him a tad off guard. He hadn't planned on it and it wasn't on the teleprompter. I guess he ignored it, but I admit I wasn't watching.
Maybe his earlier call to have liberal operatives report the identity of any fellow citizens who say anything "fishy" about his government run health insurance scheme was merely a way to call them liars to their faces. If so, damn sporting of him I'd say!
In lieu of that, he has settled for saying (ad-nausem) that unnamed people were "lying" about his plan. Which is particularly difficult to do since he says there is no specific plan yet. And that is darn convenient as well if you are trying to get people to agree with something (in a hurry, as usual) which no one can describe in detail. As we all know, Lucifer hides in the details of grandiose plans.

Regular readers of my essays will remember that the Cato Institute ran some very respectful ads in many large newspapers across America which started with the line, "With all due respect Mr. President".
Those ads were a paragon of civility as they called the President on his lies. With the exception of you folks and a few others, no one much noticed. Those challenges to his integrity surely weren't the "news" stories that the recent crude approach has become.

The real story isn't news to anyone I know.  Birds fly and Politicians lie.
Republicans, Democrats and all the rest. They think, "you just can't handle the truth".

So what is the President's record on telling the truth? I'm afraid it is abysmal.
More importantly, does he lie on the so called "health-care" issue and did he lie about the issue in question regarding the inclusion of illegal aliens in accessing health-care insurance under a new law?  The answers are, yes and yes.
In various bills in various committees of congress, amendments have been proposed (that the president knows about) which would specifically exclude illegal aliens from participation and they have been voted down each time. (by Democrats by the way, which is beside the point)
And THAT is the real issue, not the rudeness of the person who exposed it in an inappropriate manner.

From my perspective, that is the truth about lying.  So, three cheers for bad manners when it comes to focusing attention on matters of this importance.

Global Warming

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19, 2008

The Cato Institute says "In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad."

Whatever you may think about the issue, one thing is certainly beyond dispute, it's "disputable".

Again, With all due respect , Mr President

With all due respect Mr. President

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9, 2009

Politicians keep making big statements that just aren't true. (Also called lying) And people keep giving them a pass by saying, "Well, it's just politics, everyone knows they exaggerate". It's that kind of thinking that has gotten us into lots of trouble in the past. Its way past the time we start to hold people accountable for what they say. Lately the CATO INSTITUTE has been doing just that with full page ads in major newspapers. Three cheers for the Cato people.

Hundreds of distinguished economists signed that full page ad to do their part to keep people from swallowing this tripe.

Full Page Ad