The Spectre of Hillary-Care

Many people have asked: "What about people with no health insurance?" Or, "How many people die in America because they lack coverage?" These are good questions. They were two of my main questions when I started researching this issue. The most commonly heard estimate for the number of Americans without health insurance is 45 million. That's a whopping, scary number. Alas, it is also highly misleading. John Stossel of ABC News has used research by the U.S. Census Bureau to expose the deeper truth behind this scary number. It turns out that . . . 37% of the un-insured live in households earning more than $50,000 a year (and 19% live in households earning more than $75,000). Can people at these income levels afford major medical insurance? Yes. Should they be subsidized by you and me? No. Subtract this group and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 28 million. 20% of the un-insured are non-citizens. Should you and I pay to insure them through a top-down federal monopoly? We think not. Subtract this group and the number of un-insured people drops to roughly 19 million. 33% of the un-insured are already eligible for existing government programs. No new program is needed for people who are already covered by current programs. Subtract them and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 4 million. This is much more likely to be the true size of the problem. 45 million vs. 4 million -- that's a huge difference! Now here's the kicker . . . The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a standard health insurance deduction would make it financially possible for 7 million additional people to buy coverage. And another study by the Treasury Department arrives at a similar estimate. Thus . . . Congress could wipe out the un-insurance problem in one swoop -- not by creating a new program, not by spending more money, and not by monopolizing American health care, but simply by letting people keep more of their own money to spend on health insurance. Moreover, as we understand it, the proposed health insurance deduction could be structured to apply to payroll and Medicare taxes too, which are regressive taxes that hurt low income Americans far more than income taxes do. Best of all, a standard health insurance deduction wouldn't just help those with lower incomes, it would help everyone who has to purchase their own insurance. Now, what about the number of Americans who die because they have no health insurance? As far as we can tell that number is effectively very small, and almost certainly nothing like the 18,000 deaths that Michael Moore claims in "Sicko." Here's why . . . Hospitals are legally required to provide treatment, regardless of ability to pay. Most doctors will also provide routine medical care to the indigent, because this is part of the medical ethos. In fact, these are two of the main ways low-income non-citizens without insurance get treatment, in addition to the already existing programs at the local, state, and, alas, federal level. This is not to say that some people don't fall through the cracks, because of incompetence, or for other random reasons. They do. Perfection is not an option in this imperfect world. It is simply to say that our current system has no fundamental systemic flaw leading to widespread death such as we see with health care rationing in the socialist systems. We could simply leave it at this and say case closed. Congress could solve the problem of the un-insured with one simple change. No federal health care monopoly is needed. In fact, we have shown that government health care monopolies in other countries have led to unneeded deaths through rationing and waiting lists. So . . . These facts should be enough for everyone to oppose any further funding of personal health care expenses at the federal level. But we aren't done yet. Our current system would still have problems, even if Congress closes the insurance gap by creating a standard health insurance deduction. After all, the horror stories Michael Moore tells in "Sicko" are true, and similar things would continue to happen far too often, even if we closed the insurance gap. There are still many other things that could be changed to dramatically improve our existing half-social-fascist health care system, so that we could make health care cheaper and better for everyone. We will cover these issues in future messages. We will also expose and puncture more myths about American health care . . . We will expose the tricky means by which Americans are forced to subsidize the socialist health systems in countries like Britain, France, and Canada, so that they seem more efficient than they actually are. We will puncture the rankings published by the World Health Organization, showing how they're rigged to punish the American system for things it does well, while rewarding socialist systems for things they do poorly. We will debunk the egalitarian myth that socialized health care systems provide equal treatment to all. We will demonstrate that these systems are highly stratified, providing more health care to some, less to others, and generally poor care to all. Finally, we will show how the health of the whole world depends on saving what's left of the free market in America's health care system, and expanding that system to do even better by moving even more in the direction of a truly free market. But the fact that there are so many widely believed myths about health care points to a fundamental problem that must be solved. Myth-based propaganda is winning the war for the American mind, because reality-based information is largely absent from the public debate. Only we can change that. We can change the debate by forwarding these messages far and wide, and by pounding Congress, to penetrate their myth-shrouded echo chamber. We must let Congress know that we know the truth. We must tell them that we expect them to know and speak the truth too, and act on it, to improve our health care rather than make it worse. Achieving these goals is up to you. We provide the tools to do it, but you must use them. Please do two things . . . Forward this message to others. Send Congress a message opposing further federal funding of personal health care expenses. In your personal comments you can cut and paste the above statistics to let Congress know that you know what the truth is, and that you know they have the power to make things better simply by letting people keep more of their own money. Send your message here. Finally, please make a contribution to further our work, so that we can do more to win the public debate. Thank you for being a DC Downsizer. Perry Willis Communications Director DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

It's for the Children?

“… a German teen-ager was forcibly taken from her parents and imprisoned in a psychiatric ward. Her crime? She is being home-schooled. . . . Home-schooling has been illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938 and ordered all children to be sent to state schools . . . Home-schooling families are prosecuted without mercy.”- Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal The notion of compulsory government (notice I did not say “public”) education is a phenomenon that culminated with the government takeover of education in Massachusetts back in 1852 at the urging of education “reformer” Horace Mann with the institution of the Prussian education model. According to Wikipedia, the Prussian system instituted compulsory attendance, national training for teachers, national testing for all students (used to classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade, and mandatory kindergarten. Sounds a lot like what we have now just without the drain of the teacher’s union leaches. So why is the state so afraid of you as a parent exerting educational control over your child? Why is education treated as some angelic calling shrouded in a religious mystique that only a certified teacher employed by the government can provide? When did the state become the better parent without first-hand intimate knowledge of your child? The answer lies in that one thing that I have tried to impart to you recently and that is individuality. According to leftist politics, groups, not individuals, have rights. Why should the state be bogged down in addressing every one of your petty needs when it can assimilate you into a neatly labeled group with the alleged same rights and needs of others in the group? Why should the state be bothered with the individual educational needs of your child when they can be assimilated into similar age groups and assumed to have the exact same learning abilities? With that assimilation you get the inherent personality and social quirks of everyone else’s child being heaved upon yours. Behavior problems, chemical parenting, rebellion, and sometimes the unthinkable heinous crime are just waiting to assault your little one because you and I allow it. Year after year, we mindlessly offer up our children on the government educational altar only to be paid back with test anxiety, homework hatred, and potential abuse just lurking around the corner. Isn’t the definition of insanity to repeat the same action over and over with the expectation of a different result? Ultimately, schools represent control. Government schools are usually the first place where social engineering and the war on the individual takes place. Just think back to kindergarten when you had to but that list full of school supplies only for the teacher to engage in property theft by requiring your child’s supplies be offered up for the common good of the class so that no one has anything better than the rest. Lesson number one in government schools: you do not own yourself nor are you better than anyone else. If that is the case, then why grade tests and homework? Again this year the Florida legislature wants you to offer up more of your child than you have in the past. Senator Gary Siplin (a Democrat, of course) has introduced a bill (S2780) to penalize your child for wearing clothes in a manner that exposes their underwear. You’ve seen it before and maybe your kid wears his/her pants that way. Who really cares? Senator Siplin cares so much that he wants to jail offenders for 10 days and fine them $50. Guess where this will be enforced? Your local government school. Senator Mike Fasano (a Republican- gasp!) introduced S660 to require your middle school daughters to be vaccinated against HPV. Guess how this will be accomplished? Your local government school. Oh, you can protest and you can get a waiver, but should you really have to? Your child is part of you and you own yourself, right? Think again. Come on people. The state educational complex is an unproven, worn out dinosaur used only for control and to threaten you with jail for noncompliance. Only you as the loving parent, can provide what your child needs to survive and that is your undivided love and attention. You own yourself.

Time to Choose

I think we are starting a little early with the next presidential election cycle but since we have candidates already announcing and the media enabling this early politicking, I might as well jump on the bandwagon. This is, after all, a political column. From my past pieces you have hopefully learned that I am an individualist and value freedom over and above anyone’s need to confiscate the resources of others in order to support sloth and lack of initiative. Any candidate who wants to be president must have the courage to enforce the Constitution and ensure that individual rights, not group rights, are part of any official action he or she engages in. Let’s start with the Democrats. First we have Hillary (or Hitlary depending on your degree of disgust with anything Clintonian). Lest we forget, if we get Hillary, we get first-man (first-hubby, first-spouse?) Bill and all the baggage that implies. She attempted to foist universal health care onto us; she has the Rose Law Firm billing record debacle; she was/is a carpetbagger who ran for Senate in New York; and she has really done nothing of consequence while a Senator. Yet there are those who just salivate and undulate at every word she speaks. She has also been called the smartest woman in the world but has produced no evidence to validate her intelligence. She is also the typical socialist as evidenced by her quote, “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” Frankly, the woman scares me. Our only hope is that is she gets elected, we will once again have a Republican-dominated Congress. Barack Obama (whom I call the Obomination) is a very junior Senator trying to make himself the 21st century John F. Kennedy. According to Project Vote Smart ( www.vote-smart.org), the Obomination has refused to answer any questions on the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) so it begs the question of what does this man stand for? The only thing he has going for him is his age, his multi-ethnic background, and two years in the Senate. Not exactly someone I would hire for such a critical job. He gets a no vote. Another typical Democrat is John Edwards. If you look at his NPAT answers they are pretty much in line with typical leftist ideology such as increasing the EITC (tax refunds for people who don’t pay taxes), universal health care (which you are not entitled to), expanding U.N. “peacekeeping” initiatives (which further dilutes American sovereignty), and turning over civilian authority of Iraq to the U.N. Can anyone tell me what the specific Democrat fascination with the U.N. is? Another no vote. From the Republicans we have Rudy Giuliani who has not officially announced and filed for candidacy, but his name is out there. While he did turn New York’s crime situation around and cleaned up the city, his only alleged presidential qualification is running around New York after the 9/11 attacks with a bullhorn. While he does have some individualist leanings, there is nothing outstanding policy-wide that sticks out. Again, a no vote. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts governor, also has no specific policy positions that I am aware of. He has not responded to the NPAT nor does Project Vote Smart have any specific voting or other policy record on him. Another empty suit. Which brings me to Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml). While he does not have a current NPAT, his NPAT from 1996 is available on Project Vote Smart. As a point of reference, Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988 and has been a Republican in the US House since then. His NPAT and voting record consistently support individuality, limited government, reduced spending, elimination of unnecessary agencies and departments, eliminating foreign aid, and returning educational control to parents and not government. Ron Paul is also known as “Doctor No” for his consistent voting record in the House against those things the Constitution does not give the government authority over. I believe Dr. Paul is our only hope for returning our nation to the Constitutional republic it was intended to be. Definitely a yes vote. The purpose of voting is not to elect those who will plunder from one person to give to another. It is to continue the principles of fairness and limited government authority as intended by those who created our great nation. Vote with your head and not your heart. You own yourself.

What Would Jesus Do

“Governments will always misuse the machinery of the law as far as the state of public opinion permits.” - Emile Capouya I have always been amazed at how much we try to keep religion out of the machinations of government yet there are those who invoke religion in order to gain political advantage over another. Both Democrats and Republicans can be blamed since they are the ones currently in power. I have read several articles and letters to the editor regarding the alleged Christian values that the Democrat party has. News to me. It seems that every time Christmas or any other holiday which is based upon Christ comes around, Democrats and their ACLU comrades take particular pride in being “offended”. Seems to me if you have Christ in your heart then the last thing you should be is offended. The Left has created an entire industry out of being offended and persecuting Christians for any display of voluntary public adoration to their God. Doesn’t sound like something Jesus would do. The left prefers verses such as Luke 4:18 where Jesus says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor…” to indicate that we as a body politic are to somehow support the economically poor through handouts and taxing the “rich”. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” can be twisted to say that we should use government to right gender wrongs. But in order to accurately interpret these verses, one must realize that Christ was talking to Christians and not the civil government. At no time does the New Testament require that civil governments impose Christian values upon the entire populace. In order to know what is expected, one must know to whom God is speaking and not to whom we feel should be spoken to. Romans 13:3-4 states that Christians are to submit themselves to government because it “…is the minister of God to you for good.” We pay taxes, tribute, honor and custom because God commands it of us yet he does not require the government to take from us collectively to provide to others. While I do not agree that paying for everyone’s healthcare, childcare, retirement and education are noble endeavors, at no time could any of the New Testament be construed as a diktat to pillage productivity in order to support sloth. Speaking to Christians, 2 Corinthians 9:7 plainly states, “Each of you should give whatever you have decided. You shouldn’t feel sorry that you gave or feel forced to give, since God loves a cheerful giver”. Giving to others based on their need is a choice, not an inefficient government program. Using government force to redistribute charity strips the transaction of all morality, ethics and cheerfulness. If I were to threaten you with force for not giving to what I deemed appropriate, you would say that I am a criminal. But let the government perform the same act by enacting unconstitutional programs and departments, the act suddenly becomes noble and acceptable? Republicans have done their share of twisting the Bible to support their pet policies as well. We constantly hear about the immorality of the gay lifestyle yet the verses from the Old Testament that are used to deny gays their equal rights under our civil law were directed at the Jews at the time they were written. God wanted his chosen people to be separate from others not only in their worship of Him, but also in their personal affairs. Leviticus 18:2 directs Moses to “Speak unto the children of Israel...” which leads to verse 22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind…” The object of chapter 18 does not mystically change from one group of people to another. It is all directed at the nation of Israel. What would Jesus do? He would do as he always has done from the beginning of time and that is for each of us to individually examine ourselves and to give what we are able to willingly and without desire for compensation. He would also require of us to make appropriate life choices so as to not be a burden on others.

Paper Trails

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” -Joseph Stalin I guess my sympathy meter is reading absolute zero on this particular topic in that I have had enough of the whining and gnashing of teeth about Florida’s switch to mostly computerized voting machines and how they do not produce a paper trail in order to verify the voter’s intentions. What most people seem to not realize is that no other voting method or device has ever been required to produce evidence of its actions. The way I view a “paper trail” is one in which all parts of a certain transaction are traceable to the individual initiating the transaction and at least two independent entities retain evidence of the transaction. Receipts from restaurants and gas stations first come to mind since some amount of personal information is printed on them and both the establishment and individual retain copies. Since voting is an anonymous transaction, an individual cannot be sought out to verify the choices on his or her ballot. A history of U.S. voting technology includes using colored beans or kernels, shouting out one’s vote directly to election officials, and paper ballots printed by political parties. In the late 1800’s, government printed ballots became the standard to help reduce fraud. Yes these were paper, but you can hardly consider it a “trail” since it was handed back to the elections officials for tallying. Mechanical lever machines were first used in Rochester, New York in 1892 with the rest of the nation following suit by the mid-20th century. Mechanical lever machines relied on an odometer-style tallying method that was allegedly immune to human tampering. However, humans have a way of creating “workarounds” to test such immunity. Because of the mechanical nature of the machine, no paper was generated for either the voter or the elections officials thus making any vote-by-vote verification moot. Yet for almost 100 years, Americans cast their votes on such devices with little or no cries for paper. It was not until a report in 1975 by the GAO’s Office of Federal elections that the standardization of all voting equipment was called for. The report, Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying, basically stated that the reason electronic technology at that time resulted in inconsistencies was the lack of technical skills on the part of state and local elections officials resulting in their inability to create uniform standards. It was not until 1990 that voluntary uniform standards for voting technology were created by the FEC. Punch cards, those evil paper-based ballots with the chads, also generated no paper trail even though they were paper-based. Unless you had the scanner needed to read the ballot, there was still no way for anyone to look at the ballot and determine what the votes were. Neither did the voter receive any form of paper verification to ensure they were smart enough to punch the correct chad (for you who live in Palm Beach County). Optically scanned ballots are in the same boat. Fill it out like you are taking a test at school, hand it in and it gets tallied after you leave and you still get no receipt showing who or what you voted for. What exactly would you do with your paper receipt if indeed you got one? Sure, you could verify that your votes matched, but what about those times when a recount was necessary? Would you somehow be bound by law to maintain that receipt to be turned in for a recount? How would election officials know if indeed you turned it in because in order to remain anonymous, the receipt wouldn’t have your name on it? What about those people who simply will not part with their little piece of paper no matter who was asking for it? If not all of the receipts are turned in for the recount, which count is accurate- the electronic one or the paper one? And if you do turn in your receipt, the paper trail disappears again. Let the technology evolve. We didn’t get to computers without the abacus first.

Good Morning America

“The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom." – Milton Friedman With the Democrat win in the House and Senate, Republicans rightfully should be wringing their hands in frustration as to what is about to transpire in the next Congress. They should also be wringing their hands for those of us within the party who voted for third-party candidates as a means of sending a message that Republicans pretty much resemble Democrats in their lust for spending and government expansion. Regardless of Nancy Pelosi’s call for the usual bipartisanship and the “most ethical Congress” in history, this is the same dog-and-pony show Democrat party that has no intention of initiating “change” other than to change back to the way things were before 1994. The Democrat’s laundry list of change is the same tired and worn out twaddle that got them voted out of power back in 1994. Bad policies always deserve a second chance. Like Ted Kennedy’s tirade about the minimum wage and that “we will raise it, and raise it, and raise it, and raise it some more.” It’s easy for Uncle Teddy to spout off about minimum wages since it’s not the government paying them in the first place. Whenever the marginal cost of doing business increases, business will offset that cost by simply not hiring. But Uncle Teddy seems to think that those greedy businesses (especially you sole proprietors out there) have all the cash in the world to pay $7.25 per hour to flip burgers. We can also look forward to an increase in taxes. From the Democrat website (www.dnc.org) we have the immortal words of Howard Dean, "Nancy Pelosi has said that there will not be a middle class (tax) increase. I think that there are places where you will see us unwind the tax breaks. The tax breaks, for example, that the vice president and the president gave to the big oil companies. They're making billions of dollars, charging us $3 a gallon. Of course those folks don't need tax breaks and we could use that money to balance the budget”. You’ll notice that what is blindingly absent from Mr. Dean’s rant is the part where government simply spends less and abolishes unnecessary agencies. What Mr. Dean also fails to understand is that corporations do not pay the taxes- consumers do. As much as you might want to rail against “Big Oil” and “Big Pharma” and their evil profits, they will simply pass any tax increase onto you and me in the form of higher prices. Go back to practicing medicine Dr. Dean and leave the economics to laissez faire capitalism. What the Democrats can’t accomplish through the free exchange of ideas they will either litigate or legislate which will bring back the Fairness Doctrine and force broadcasters to offer opposing viewpoints. The Fairness Doctrine was originally supposed to prevent one broadcaster from propagandizing one particular side of a story without the benefit of an opposition viewpoint. The problem is that until 1987, AM talk radio was all but nonexistent because of the Fairness Doctrine because broadcasters were afraid of having to give up bandwidth that they were paying for to offer other viewpoints. Thank God this piece of tripe was repealed by the FCC in 1987. It is obvious to most that the liberal point of view does not garner an audience in the free market. Air America had gone bankrupt- a testament to bad politics and the fact no one wants to listen to whiners. Say what you will about Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, and others but they have forged the path through the talk radio frontier for others to follow. The fact that they have been on for years speaks volumes. There will be no change. What we will get is the same socialist, “feel-good”, wealth-envy politics that Democrats have been foisting on us for years. They just don’t seem to get it that they, like the Republicans, have no new ideas, no new ways of thinking, and no intention of you exercising your freedom apart from what they say you can. Be careful what you wish for. You’ve got it for the next two years.

Pro Choice is No Choice

“I am pro-choice on everything.”- Libertarian Party Bumper Sticker I will not attempt to debate the merits or demerits of abortion. People on both sides of the issue and somewhere in between have good-faith opinions on the topic and they should be respected. My issue specifically is that of semantics and how the left has twisted a phrase into a cliché that implies actual choice. Look at the left in general and look at the places where they have a stronghold on power. Places like Boston (I did live there for three years), San Francisco (visited for a few days), Seattle, and New York City look like third world nations and tend to be bastions of alleged lefty “liberalism”. But let’s not fool ourselves. Liberals are liberal with everyone else’s resources but their own. Mass transit that doesn’t alleviate urban congestion, state income taxes, pandering to the homeless by allowing panhandling and public debauchery, Draconian restrictions on personal protection devices (guns and other projectiles), uber-restrictions on anything but public (government) education and you are left with nothing that resembles “choice” unless you choose what the liberals are doling out at everyone else’s expense. Am I pro-choice on everything? I can comfortably say that I am 90% there. Abortion? While I personally oppose it, I do not think government should have a say in the matter and that includes the withholding of any federal funds used for women’s “healthcare” or “reproductive choice” since the public has no moral obligation to fund abortions. By the way, you do have reproductive choice. You can choose to reproduce or not. I am pro-choice on education. Parents, and not the state, should be the ultimate decider of where, when, and if their children will attend school. Compulsory education laws should be repealed as they force families (particularly racial minority families) to send their kids to schools where other students bully, intimidate, and sometimes physically assault other students. And let’s not forget teachers to sexually entice their students. How many home school or private school shootings have you heard of recently? Parents who choose to not send their kids to government schools should get a dollar-for-dollar property tax credit off of their property tax millage rate or from their monthly rent in order to shop for the best provider of education and that includes home schooling. All reporting requirements for home schooled students should also be repealed. I encourage any parent in need of educational freedom to seek out Step Up for Students (www.stepupforstudents.com) and see how they may help you. Pro-choice on drugs? Still yes. Drugs are inanimate chemicals produced by humans or nature which possess no inherent morality. We have stigmatized drugs to the point where even getting a valid prescription, at times, seems like the Spanish Inquisition. Recreational usage can and does lead to decreased career options, declining health, and family disruption. But why should the government use my tax money to prevent someone from choosing to be a loser in life? As long as the public is not financing the healthcare, rehab, or other lifestyle enhancements of a drug user, why should I be worried that he or she chooses to treat their body like a trash heap? Can anyone tell me the exit strategy for the War on Drugs? Guns? Let me hear an “Amen” from the front pew. The right to “pack and play” has been reaffirmed many times the by the Supreme Court. The meaning of the second amendment is plain and does not refer to the military having weapons. We know the military has weapons- its part of their job. What the second amendment affords the average citizen is the ability to protect oneself from the physical violence of others. The concealed carry and “castle doctrine” laws here in Florida serve as deterrents and create a silent army of thousands of gun carriers that may one day choose to help save your life. Come on liberals. Choice encompasses both personal and economic issues and extends way beyond the ability to kill off your unborn. You seem to think women are not capable of making any other choice but that one. Although if you credited women with more brains, they just may decide to leave your ranks and that doesn’t bode well for your political agenda.

We're Fighting Them Over There

“Just as war is freedom’s cost, disagreement is freedom’s privilege.” – Bill Clinton Lest we forget, here is just a little line up of the lefties that supported the war before they didn’t support it: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. Just thought you needed a reminder of why we are fighting over there and not here.

One Party Rule

“I don't make jokes, I just watch the government and report the facts.” -- Will Rogers I recently had the opportunity to eat at a certain German restaurant in Tampa that advertises regularly on a local talk radio station. The owner gave me a new perspective on the ineffectiveness of bi-partisan or multi-partisan government. Having come from Germany and been subject to a parliamentary system where multiple parties jockey for control and voting blocs, he related to me the ultimate futility in such a system. Could the US government, dominated by two major parties for decades, be headed for similar insignificance? I of course mentioned that possibly having viable minor parties win seats in our Congress would help inject new ideas that the Republicrats are unwilling to entertain. His response was essentially that the reason why nothing of significance ever comes out of our government is the fact that there is not a united voice in charge of all branches of government. In such a system, we would see once and for all what one particular party would do (or not do) in order to move our country in a single direction. We would really get a taste of what “progressive” Democrats would do to our tax code, education system, and healthcare. We would get to see what “conservative” Republicans would do to privacy, corporate welfare, and social issues. Gone would be the banter from the other side of the aisle and the gridlock that bipartisanship brings. I have often wondered what Democrats would actually “progress” us towards and what Republicans are “conserving” us from. Have seen little conservation George Bush’s last budget. But would even an all Democrat or all Republican or all Green or all Libertarian legislative and executive branch agree with everything that is proposed by that party? Is it possible that everyone within one single party could ever agree on everything? As we can see now from the two dominant parties, their ranges of political philosophy cover a wide range of opinion. The Democrats have Zel Miller and Howard Dean. The Republicans have Arlen Spector and Dennis Hastert. I would consider Jeb Bush to be right-libertarian whereas Harry Brown as more left-libertarian. Need I say more? Political thought cannot be neatly compartmentalized into right and left, conservative and liberal. The radio talking heads would have you think that (anyone who disagrees with Sean Hannity is automatically liberal, for example). Political thought encompasses all shades and nuances that cannot be placed into its own discrete box. With the billions of people on this planet come billions of political and religious thoughts than cannot be easily labeled. Anyone who has taken the Worlds Smallest Polii But would having a single party congress and presidency actually bring is the utopia they claim they can provide (with just a modest increase in your taxes)? If you are relying on the good natured promises of the one who has no legal precedent for either One party rule is certainly nothing new. It is a concept that has been part of both democracies and dictatorships. Single dominant parties usually stay in power through coercion and trickery- not at all unlike our current duopoly.

The Fair Tax Man Cometh

“[The tax code] is a monstrosity and there's only one thing to do with it. Scrap it, kill it, drive a stake through its heart, bury it and hope it never rises again to terrorize the American people.” -Steve Forbes Well, if there is anyone we can blame for the enactment of the Income Tax through the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, that would be Wyoming. In 1913, Wyoming’s ratification of the 16th Amendment provided the required ¾ majority of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution. Thanks, a lot. Is it a coincidence that Dick Cheney is from Wyoming? Regardless of the conspiracy theories that have swarmed about regarding the legality of the income tax or whether the ratification of the 16th Amendment was appropriately executed by then Secretary of State Philander Knox does not diminish the fact that we are currently stuck with a system of taxation that takes a rocket surgeon (brain surgery plus rocket science) to understand. It is also a behavior modification mechanism pitting “the rich” (whatever that means) against “the poor” (ditto); drivers of hybrids against Hummers; itemizers against non. The income tax has been a source of class warfare since its inception and during every election since. Probably the most insidious part of our system of “voluntary compliance” is payroll withholding which effectively blunts the impact of the tax being taken. We have become so accustomed to having money taken from our pay that we pretty much don’t miss it at this point. The government takes its cut before you even get a chance to spend it. Because of this, most of you cannot distinguish the difference between what you pay in taxes from the refund you get. Most of you think that because you get a refund, you effectively paid no tax. Not so, Grasshopper. Our current system ultimately taxes productivity, savings, and investments. The more one earns the higher the marginal rate will be. The more capital gains you earn, the more you pay. There are also numerous loopholes that provide tax favors to individuals or corporations in order to encourage certain behaviors. The Internal Revenue Service has about 115,000 auditors and agents. This policing force is larger than all other federal regulatory agencies combined. There are more IRS agents than there are enforcement personnel in the EPA, BATF, OSHA, FDA, and DEA combined. IRS agents can search your property and financial documents without a search warrant. They can seize property from citizens without a trial. Even with their legal activities, agents frequently conduct illegal reviews of citizens' tax returns. The Fair Tax proposed by John Linder (R-GA) and talk show host Neal Boortz (HR 25, S 25, www.fairtax.org) offers an alternative to the income tax by taxing consumption one-time only at the final point of retail sale on new items. A consumption tax would eliminate all withholding allowing workers to keep 100% of their income (except for voluntary deductions) giving them more buying and saving power. All embedded taxes that accumulate throughout the production cycle are also eliminated thus reducing the price of the product. Prices would also drop as a result of the elimination of corporate income taxes that are normally passed on to the consumer. All costs of income tax compliance (attorneys, accountants, paperwork) are eliminated as well. By shifting the burden of taxation from income to consumption, the tax base is broadened ensuring that everyone pays their “fair share”. There are also no exemptions (unlike the Florida sales tax) but this is offset by a monthly “pre-bate” indexed to the amount of tax a family of four living at the poverty level would pay. The pre-bate essentially eliminates the taxes that are paid on essentials like food, clothes, and medicine. The one serious flaw in the Fair Tax is that there is no companion bill to amend the Constitution to repeal the 16th amendment. Without such a provision, there is no guarantee that the federal government would not institute another income tax simultaneously with the Fair Tax, however; the Fair Tax effectively guts the current tax code so there is no income tax to collect. Taxation does not have to be difficult nor does it have to be a wedge between those who tend to be more productive and those who do are not. If you buy, you pay. Fairness has never been so simple.

Republican Terrorism

“The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth”- Bill Clinton Political terrorism and other forms of manipulation are effective tools for influencing the minds of those with little capacity for self-determination and initiative. Many ploys have been used by both major parties such as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, Prohibition, the Income Tax, and assorted other things that divert us from defending the most precious thing we have in this country- freedom. Republicans are not solely at fault for the current discourse regarding terrorism and its subsequent prevention. Democrats have pretty much towed the line with the GOP in the funding, rhetoric, and continuance of the War on Terrorism. Every big name ‘Crat’ initially voted to give George Bush the power to wage war against Iraq. They have also voted to continue funding and even chickened out on the resolution in the House that called for the troops to be immediately withdrawn. The problem is that Democrats don’t want to come off as being soft on terrorism. But it’s a little late for the tiger to change its stripes. We saw their softness with Bill Clinton’s ignoring of the first World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of the USS Cole; the softness has been around for a long time. FDR and JFK must be rolling in their graves. Terrorism must have a victim. If Republicans (and Democrats) are guilty of terrorism, then their victims are those who choose to stay uninformed, helpless, and in need of their government to protect them and feed them whatever their minds will absorb. Terrorism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It must have complicit recipients who offer up their freedom in order to be terrorized. As long as the terrorist is enabled, he will continue to seek out his objective which is to paralyze those not strong enough to resist. George Bush and the GOP are not terrorists. Inept, maybe. Reliant on the advice of ensconced and unelected advisors, probably. However, terrorists cannot be voted out of or recalled from office. Terrorists are not subject to the powers of other branches of government. Terrorists do plant in the minds of the willing false tales of their opponents intentions much like the Democrats do when they assert that Republicans are going to take away retirement money from old people, children will go without lunch, and the sick will have to choose between drugs and food. Terrorists use fear in order to tip the balance of power in their favor. Doesn’t that pretty much describe most politicians? At this point, Democrats have nothing to offer and have offered nothing since the 2000 election except name calling and hatemongering. The party of love, sensitivity, tolerance, and everything flowery has an intense hatred (family value?) for George Bush and most, if not all, Republicans. Can we really believe Democrats when they throw around terms like terrorist, Nazi, and Hitler when they themselves cannot see past their own intolerance? What makes a Democrat any less terrorist than anyone else? Race and poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done nothing to improve the lot of those they claim to support. If the Democrat party is doing such a bang up job with reducing racism and intolerance, then why haven’t they eliminated them? Why do we still have Draconian speech codes on most college campuses? Why are Conservative and/or Republican student groups targeted as objects of derision in the classroom? Why isn’t the Tolerant Party standing up for these people too? Is it just my imagination or is the Democrat Party really full of crap when it comes to uplifting the downtrodden? I’ll vote for the crap. If you believe in the GOP-as-terrorist mantra, then get off of your butt and do something to stop it. Initiate a recall election against the person terrorizing you and get him out of office. Write letters to the editor. Start a blog. Do something but stop polluting the air with your impotent name calling and whining as it does nothing to solve the problem. The job of the political powers is to ensure our freedom and security. Anything less is incompetence. Anything more is terrorism.

No Room for Moderates

“I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” – Howard Dean The opening quote pretty much summarizes the current state of the Democrat Party and the direction they are headed. This comes from the party of tolerance, love, peace, sensitivity, and multiculturalism. They lecture us that hate is not a family value but have no problem spewing invective when their policies are challenged. We are intolerant if we don’t want illegals crossing our borders; insensitive when we insist on personal responsibility; warmongers if we defend ourselves or support others who defend themselves. In short, there is no making these people happy. With the likes of Howard Dean, Cynthia McKinney, John Murtha, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and William Jefferson, it’s no wonder why most of us here in the hinterlands feel that Democrats have no grip on reality and certainly have no particular penchant for engaging in the legislative process. Can anyone name a specific piece of significant legislation that Cynthia McKinney has sponsored? All we know about her is what we hear in the news and read in the paper. She and her “progressive” cohorts have offered nothing of substance to advance personal responsibility and reduce government dependency because doing so would marginalize their hold on power and their existence. Is there a place for a “moderate” within the Democrat Party? Can reasonable people disagree with their party leadership on certain topics and still call themselves a Democrat? Not if you are Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. These two men have placed themselves squarely behind President Bush and the war, have publicly verbalized their support, and have not wavered in that support since it was voted upon. Like most of their Democrat friends in the Senate, they voted for a war based on information available at the time and wanted to give our president the means to carry out his duties. However, unlike their fellow Democrats, they have refused to recant their support through some vague excuse as being lied to or not being given all the necessary information. Joe Lieberman has taken quite a bit of heat lately from within his own tolerant and sensitive Democrat Party. Not because he doesn’t support the usual lefty agenda. Look at his website and you will see endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the AFL-CIO. Doesn’t get much more “progressive” than that. Make no mistake. Joe Lieberman is no friend of limited government and personal choice aside from abortion. Yet because he has chosen to stand with our president and the war on terror he must be made to pay for his insolence and individuality. So much for moderation. Zell Miller, former governor of Georgia and US Senator, also has pulled farther right in recent years. Michael Crowley of Slate wrote a piece in August, 2004 about this rightward shift in Miller’s politics. He writes, “The first signs of Miller's conversion came in July 2000. Miller had left the governor's office and was settling into retirement when Georgia's senior Republican senator, Paul Coverdell, died suddenly. The state's Democratic governor, Roy Barnes, named Miller to fill the seat. After his appointment, Miller issued a declaration of bipartisanship, insisting that he "would serve no single political party, but rather the 7.5 million Georgians." He quickly backed a big Republican tax cut and only reluctantly admitted his support for Gore's presidential campaign.” Apparently, tax cuts and half-heartedly supporting a snoozer candidate amounts to party treason while the big tent at the Democrat circus has folded. The man just cannot win. But let’s not kid ourselves. The Democrats are not the sole party that tries to purge itself of impurities and free-thinkers. I’m still a member of a minor party that is replete with “purists” and any mention of ideas that may be in the vicinity of the party line but not exactly, sends some members into an Exorcist-style head spin. You don’t grow party bases by excluding those who may only agree with 70% of your platform. Get them in the door first; convince them later. The GOP is the only big tent party that welcomes thought from all parts of the spectrum. From the hard-right Newt Gingrich to the left-leaning Rudy Giuliani with the libertarians in between, the GOP is more moderate and more tolerant than any two Democrats put together.

It's Like deja` vu All Over Again

“In times of war, the last person you want in the foxhole with you is a liberal. They are always desperately looking for a white flag to wave. They are always trying to "understand" the enemy and excuse his bad behavior.” - Columnist Alan Caruba War between nations is never fun, pretty, enjoyable, or desirable. Although I have never had the displeasure of being in the middle of actual armed conflict, I can only imagine the horrors such activity must evoke. The only “war” I have been a bystander in was the Cold War, which began before I was born. “Progressives” (I won’t use the word liberal as it is an insult to classical liberals) love to obfuscate the obvious by invoking clichés like the Yogi Berra-ism this piece is named after. The cliché clouds the fact of what Yogi really was: three-time MVP, winner of 10 World Series rings, and just a down-to-earth kind of man. However, this time the famous line is used to once again cover for the bad guys while the current US administration takes it on the chin as being the instigator. Don’t get me wrong. I, like most people, do not support war in general and have no desire to see the US become engaged in the internal affairs of sovereign nations like Iran. But at what point do we take the statements of the Iranian leadership seriously that they intend an all out escalation of their own nuclear proliferation? If their intent is to build nuclear power plants and to keep the electricity flowing, then I want some sort of verification and monitoring that this is the case. I’m not really comfortable accepting at face value the “word” of dictators that their intentions are good. When do we take the initiative to prevent psychotic despots from launching weapons against its neighbors and possibly the US? Is there a threshold at which we say enough is enough? There do appear to be similarities between pre-war Iraq and the current lead up to a possible incursion into Iran. International isolation, crackdowns on dissidents, and ethnic isolation because most Iranians are Persian Shi’ites and are not included in the fellowship of Suni Muslims. However, what makes Iran more dangerous is the threat of nuclear retaliation, something Saddam Hussein never had. And Iran has an intense hatred for Israel and the US is really the only nation coming to her aid. In case you are wondering, I fully support Israel’s retaliation against Hezbollah and I hope that it is overwhelming and disproportionate. While I understand the hatred middle eastern nations have for Israel from a Biblical and historical perspective, I have never understood the overall worldwide anti-Jewish attitude that people have in general. Someone enlighten me please. Why is it alright for nations such as the US and Russia (or the former USSR) to possess nuclear technology while we cringe at theocracies doing the same? The US and Russia have in inherent restraint in overtly threatening others with their weaponry, a process called mutually assured destruction. We engage in nuclear production and research primarily to ensure our defense and not to arbitrarily attack countries we don’t like. We don’t have those assurances from the likes of Iran or even North Korea which changes the dynamics of the situation. Liken it to the bully at school terrorizing your child. Are you going to wait until your kid gets harmed or, God forbid, killed because you wanted give the bully the benefit of the doubt? How sensitive of you. Ultimately, I would rather the US restrain itself from attacking Iran. Let someone else , like Israel, take care of it for us. They are accustomed to the region, know the indigenous peoples and cultures better than we do, and have a compelling interest in this potential conflict as it directly affects their national security. Or better yet, we can allow the impotent and oft reviled UN to engage in peacekeeping, write and not enforce resolutions, boycott, sanction, or whatever the hell else it’s supposed to do. But the ineffectiveness of the UN is for another day. Right now, we need to cage the bully.

A Wetlands Victory (For Now)

(Note: This is NOT my work. I am placing it here in its entirety because the subject matter is one of interest to me. Please direct correspondence to the author of the piece.) by Mila Cobanov [Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006] [Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.] "This is the oldest case in my chambers… [It] is referred to within my chambers … as the "Sandman Case." Everybody that talks about the Sandman knows that we are talking about Mr. Rapanos because what he did was to move sand from one end of his property to the other end of his property. This all occurred on property he owned. Nothing was brought in to fill this land except sand that was already on that land." – Judge Zatkoff, Federal District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)[1] At the age of 70, John Rapanos has finally ended his 18-year battle with state and federal environmental regulators, and has come out on the winning end when the US Supreme Court ruled in his favor on June 19, 2006.[2] Much was at stake for Mr. Rapanos, who faced a conviction of 63 months in a federal penitentiary and approximately $13 million dollars in civil and criminal penalties. This 12-year litigation tale begins when Mr. Rapanos decided to start moving some sand… Mr. Rapanos owned 175 acres of land that he wanted to sell to a developer. In order to make the property more marketable, he decided to fill his property with sand so that it would be fit for development. Fifty-four acres of his property constituted "wetlands," described in the majority opinion as "land with sometimes-saturated soil conditions."[3] A consultant hired by Mr. Rapanos informed him that he did indeed have wetlands property that would be subject to regulation by state and federal enforcement; Mr. Rapanos, a petulant man, threatened the consultant and thereafter refused further inspection from state officials (interestingly, despite the lack of a warrant these state officials nevertheless trespassed on Mr. Rapanos's property after being denied access by him).[4] Because of his uncooperativeness, the state officials contacted the Environmental Protection Agency, which thereafter claimed jurisdiction over his property under the Clean Water Act (CWA), preventing him from filling his wetlands under threat of civil and criminal action. The US Army Corps of Engineers, the governmental body determining which property is subject to the CWA, promptly invoked their authority once Mr. Rapanos refused to seek a permit and proceeded to fill his property with sand. Writing for the majority on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is quick to point out that the costs in obtaining a permit are not slight: "The average applicant for an individual permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spends 313 days and $28,915 — not counting costs of mitigation or design changes."[5] Overall, more than $1.7 billion is spent each year by both private and public sectors in efforts to obtain wetlands permits.[6] Mr. Rapanos's stubbornness culminated in a guilty verdict for various CWA violations, and a criminal sentence that the federal district court judge was loath to enforce. At his sentencing hearing on March 15, 2005, the prosecution implored the court for a sentence of 63 months for Mr. Rapanos. Judge Zatkoff made a lucid comparison to one of the most notorious water pollution disasters in American history: the Exxon-Valdez oil spill that dumped 10.8 million gallons of crude oil in Alaskan waters, killing thousands of animals and crippling the local fishing industry. In that case, the drunken captain that caused the wreck was sentenced to serve 1,000 hours of community service in the course of 5 years — with no prison time or fine. In contrast, Mr. Rapanos's act of filling his land with sand caused no harm to the public in any appreciable sense. Moreover, his act of filling the land with sand was not polluting anything; the sand is meant (and does) "fill" and stick to the land in order to pave the way for development on the property. In light of this, Judge Zatkoff fined Mr. Rapanos $185,000 and sentenced him to 3 years of probation that was treated as time served. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Zatkoff's downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Judge Zatkoff, who is otherwise known for a strict sentencing policy, nevertheless stood his ground: I don't know if it's just a coincidence that the case that I just sentenced prior to this case has come into this court, that was the case of Mr. Gonzalez, who was a person selling dope on the streets of the United States. He is an illegal person here. He's a citizen of Cuba, not an American citizen. He has a prior criminal record…. So here we have a person who comes to the United States and commits crimes of selling dope and the government asks me to put him in prison for ten months. And then we have an American citizen who buys land, pays for it with his own money, and he moves some sand from one end to the other and government wants me to give him sixty-three months in prison. Now, if that isn't our system gone crazy, I don't know what is. And I am not going to do it.[7] Why this fervor to punish a 70 year old man? Appalled at the state's trespass of Mr. Rapanos's property, and the subsequent witch hunt by the Corps, Judge Zatkoff explained that "we have a very disagreeable person who insists on his constitutional rights. And this is the kind of person that the Constitution was passed to protect."[8] Before the case was heard before the Supreme Court, Mr. Rapanos amassed support from the general public and various special interest groups that sought to curb the Corps's regulation-wielding authority. Indeed, Mr. Rapanos did not just have the support of average American citizens and special interest groups. As Pacific Legal Foundation notes, "Groups representing hundreds of government agencies that provide clean water for tens of millions of Americans are supporting Mr. Rapanos. Supporters include the largest urban water district in the nation, the largest coalition of public water agencies in the nation, and a coalition of water agencies that provide clean water to more than 30 million citizens in six states in the Western United States."[9] Although triumphant, Mr. Rapanos's victory at the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the state agents' unconstitutional trespass on his property. The issue before the Supreme Court was simply whether the Corps's exercise of jurisdiction was permissible under the Clean Water Act. The 5-4 majority determined that it was not. The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutants (including sand) into navigable waters.[10] "Navigable waters" are defined as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas."[11] The Corps enjoys expanded jurisdiction over wetlands because the transition from water to solid ground is not abrupt, thus all wetlands adjoining a navigable waterway were subject to the Corps's jurisdiction.[12] Labeling the Corps as "an enlightened despot,"[13] Justice Scalia does not mince words about the Corps's hungry desire for regulatory control over every drop of water in America. The Corps has kept expanding its interpretation of "navigable waters" to include all forms of intrastate waters, including "storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the dessert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years."[14] At one point, the Corps even applied its authority over an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois; the Supreme Court overruled this action as an overreaching of power and found that nothing in the text of CWA authorized the Corps to assert jurisdiction.[15] This expansion of power came to affect Mr. Rapanos, whose saturated lands were claimed to abut navigable waterways because there were "hydrological connections" between his property and "adjacent tributaries of navigable waters."[16] It was clear to the Supreme Court that whatever "hydrological connections" meant, it impermissibly expanded the CWA's definition of "navigable waters" at the Corps's discretion: In applying the definition to "ephemeral streams," "wet meadows," storm sewers and culverts, "directional sheet flow during storm events," drain tiles, man-made drainage ditches, and dry arroyos in the middle of the desert, the Corps has stretched the term "waters of the United States" beyond parody.[17] To the Corps, Mr. Rapanos's land was clearly moist enough, and his disposition indignant enough that they felt a right to drag him through criminal and civil litigation over the course of 12 years. Mr. Rapanos's land was 20 miles away from a waterway; his 54 acres of wetlands (or "sometimes-saturated soil") were nowhere near adjacent to a stream of navigable water. Thus, after years of battle, Mr. Rapanos has achieved victory against the regulators. But what sort of victory is it? He spent a considerable amount of time and money battling the federal government in defense of his own property. Mr. Rapanos is a new-age entrepreneur. In a regulated state, today's entrepreneur is the man or woman battling bureaucracy with their time, money, and effort that would have been better placed toward functional, capitalist ventures. Real entrepreneurs are supposed to be self-serving, willing to make capital risks on consumer demand. In contrast, today's entrepreneurs are selfless, risking their life savings and the possibility of incarceration in a federal penitentiary in order to give future entrepreneurs more room to maneuver in the stranglehold of regulatory policies. Barron's 2006 Summer Reading List Winner:$28 The Supreme Court took care to state that "the Government's expansive interpretation would result in a significant impingement of the State's traditional and primary power over land and water use."[18] Nevertheless, the majority commented on the fact that the Corps's ever-expanded jurisdiction into wetlands was part of the environmental lobbying efforts attempting to effectuate increased protection for wetlands under the CWA. By stating that "a Comprehensive National Wetlands Protection Act is not before us, and the wisdom of such a statute is beyond our ken," the majority implies that if such an Act were before them, they would dutifully uphold the Act as constitutional. In one sense, this reflects a pyrrhic victory for society as a whole. As soon as Congress gets the political muster and statutorily enacts protection for all the nation's wetlands, the Supreme Court will most likely uphold the Act as constitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's reverence for establishing precedent always supersedes the Commerce Clause limitation binding Congress against regulating intrastate affairs. As laudable as Mr. Rapanos's victory is, the sobering reality is that there are many more individuals like him who will still be subject to the regulatory authority of the federal government, and will not have his tenacious temperament to fight for their rights in a decade-long battle. Mila Cobanov is a student at Wayne State Law School (Detroit, MI), and a 2006 Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute. Send her mail. Comment on the blog. Notes [1] Sentencing Hearing Transcript, 7-8 (PDF). [2] The opinion can be found here (PDF). [3] Rapanos v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 126 S. Ct. 2208; 2214 (online opinion at 4), hereinafter "Rapanos." [4] Sentencing Hearing Transcript, supra Note 1, at 11. [5] Rapanos at 2214 (online opinion at 4), citing Sunding & Zilberman, "The Economics of Environmental Regulation by Licensing: An Assessment of Recent Changes to the Wetland Permitting Process, 42 Natural Resources J. 59, 74-76 (2002). [6] Ibid, Sunding & Zilberman at 81. [7] United States v. Rapanos, 235 F.3d 256, 259-260 (6th Cir. 2000). [8] Sentencing Hearing Transcript, supra Note 1, at 11-12. [9] Press Release June 17, 2006. [10] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). [11] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). [12] United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 132 (1985). [13] Rapanos at 2214 (online opinion at 4). [14] Rapanos at 2215 (online opinion at 4). [15] Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). [16] United States v Rapanos, 376 F.3d 629, 643 (6th Cir. 2004). [17] Rapanos at 2222 (online opinion at 11). [18] Rapanos at 2224 (online opinion at 12).

American Dictatorship

“The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other”. – Ronald Reagan To be a dictatorship, a nation must in some way be oppressed by the dictator. The definition of dictator refers to an absolute ruler; a tyrant or despot. You may not like George Bush or his policies, but dictator falls short of what the man is. Dictators cannot be voted out of office. But let’s examine the dictator pejorative a bit to see if it’s true. What specifically has George Bush done to you personally that has caused you such anguish and hand-wringing? When was your door broken down in the middle of the night in a flurry of police conducting some clandestine raid? When was the last time you had that sneaky suspicion that someone was watching your every move? Unless you are currently under psychiatric care, probably never. But let’s not confuse ourselves with facts. I try to be fair in my assessment of the current administration and its attitude towards personal freedom. George Bush is no libertarian and he is no economic conservative. But I will stop short of the dictator moniker. The idea of a dictatorship comes from the previously unknown presidential “signing statements” that accompany most of the legislation signed into law by a president. These statements have been used by presidents past, but more so by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II as a means of “dictating” what parts of passed legislation will be enforced and obeyed by the executive branch. My copy of the constitution grants to no president the power to pick and choose the laws that will be obeyed. In fact, Article II Section 3 specifically states, “he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed”. In fact, if you read Article II in its entirety, the president should be a relatively innocuous post. Does this elevate a president to the level of dictator? If George W. Bush is a dictator, then why wasn’t Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter enabled the falloff the Shah of Iran and ushered in today’s Islamic terrorism. Certainly Lyndon Johnson, by perpetuating a politically unpopular war in Vietnam and expanding government through his “Great Society” programs such as Medicaid and Medicare could be labeled a dictator since we were not given a choice to participate in those programs. Johnson’s War on Poverty has yet to see an exit strategy. FDR, the most reelected president ever, certainly could have worn the dictator title proudly due to his expansion of government through his New Deal proposals such as the Farm Security Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security and attempting to pack the Supreme Court. Why are Bush’s actions being singled out while past Democrat presidents get a pass? Do we need to rehash Bill and Hillary Clinton’s illegal escapades while they (yes, they) were in power such as Rose Law Firm billing records, Travelgate, and Monica? Wasn’t it Bill Clinton that gave last minute pardons to felons like Mark Rich and handed nuclear technology to the Koreans who threaten us with it today? Echelon and Carnivore (NSA and FBI domestic communication spying programs respectively) ran full steam under Clinton’s watch with nary a complaint from Democrats. For the past six years, Democrats have offered no mechanisms for undoing any of Clinton’s actions while he was in office yet are gleeful at any and all mention of Bush’s judgmental lapses. America is not a dictatorship, but is well on its way to becoming ever more oppressive and intrusive. The Congress as well as the President are both complicit in stripping original meaning and intent of our Constitution by passing legislation aimed at reducing overall freedom. Like I have mentioned in past pieces, most of you don’t care what is being stripped away as long as you get yours at the expense of others. Entitlement programs; a rigged tax code that rewards sloth and lack of motivation; a compulsory education system swimming in labor union swill; victimization of criminals; hate crime legislation; and a host of others do more to instill dictatorial powers in legislators than does George Bush’s signing statements and have been perpetuated by presidents and legislators of both major parties. When will you ever learn?

Morality of Economic Libertarianism

"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers." Murray N. Rothbard I am taking this week’s piece to respond to editor Martin Grekso’s Sun Strokes column in the last issue of the TampaBay Sun entitled “Economic Libertarianism is Pure Hokum”. It is probably not always wise to rebuke one’s editor, but he graciously agreed to this piece. Thank you. One theme that hopefully has run through my pieces since I have been writing for the St. Pete Post/ TampaBay Sun is that you own yourself and the resources that comprise your very existence. Without having title to yourself, you become the slave of another until such time that your owner decides that the servitude may end. This premise runs through not only the personal interactions you engage in but also the economic ones. It is not enough to say that I can do to my body what I want; I must be able to do with my resources as I want, too. Mr. Grekso is up front with his feelings of what economic libertarianism is- “cavalier greed”. My dictionary defines greed as “a rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves, as of food, wealth, or power.” Inherent in this definition is the subjectivity of who determines what my needs or deserts are. If