I'm Tired Of Dishonest Bullshit

This is the straw that broke my back.

I'm sorry but it is impossible for any thinking person to be against people having government issued ID.  To be against it you must be either A) some sort of neo-nazi white supremacist type, or B) committed to perpetuating a permanent helpless underclass for your own, and you privileged class's own, political benefit.

Without a valid government ID one cannot get a job, buy alcohol, drive a car, write a check, travel outside the country, travel on an airplane, travel on Amtrak, travel on a Greyhound bus, buy medications that contain pseudoephedrine, or even purchase prescription medication. I'm sorry but what kind of person wants to keep people from having such personal agency in their lives?

I'll tell you who. Evil sons of bitches. That's who.

If people like Lewis Black spent HALF the time they do bitching about Republicans helping people enter the 20th Century already none of this would be an issue. The truth is they don't want poor Americans to enter the 20th (or 21st) century. They want them helpless and dependent.

A Public Service From The Iconic Midwest

In case you were contemplating spending part of your day reading one or more of the varied and sundry liberal accounts of the recent Supreme Court's questioning of the law known as Obamacare, let me offer you instead this short précis :

The sad fact is this is fairer to their reaction than their depiction of the arguments against the individual mandate.

As Andrew Klavan puts it:

Listening to MSM reports about the Supreme Court judges questioning lawyers on ObamaCare has been kind of comical. As Rand Simberg points out, both the media and the government’s lawyers seemed wholly unprepared for the basic questions from the judges — questions they would have heard a million times by now if they ever actually listened to conservative commentators instead of simply demonizing them. The conservative judges especially are only asking what Tea Partiers at town hall meetings have been asking since the bill was passed: “If the government can force you to buy insurance for your own good, what CAN’T it force you to do?”

Well, Klavan is wrong about one thing. They have answered this question. It just so happens that the answer is "nothing" and they are afraid to admit it in plain language.

Could There Be A Possible Justification?

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how the Federal government has the right to dictate to a private manufacturer what state they are allowed to operate a factory within. I'm practically fracturing my skull when I learn the stated rationale given by the Feds is they prefer the laws (and presumably the lawmakers writing those laws) of one state more than those in the other state.

I mean I realize this is the sort of thing Stalin could have mandated, but I thought we were not going there.

Stupid And Tyrannical

Ah...the left...smell the evil stupidity:

A year ago, no one took seriously the idea that a federal health care mandate was unconstitutional. And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face.

Got that? Buying health insurance is economic activity so the Feds have the power to make you do so.

But, buying oranges or porn is also economic activity. If Congress felt like making Americans purchase oranges or porn they would have the power?

I'm sorry, but you have to be almost brain dead to find that an argument to be squared with even the most basic notion of individual freedom. Or you have to be a Stalinist. (Six one half dozen the other I know.)

Conservatives Don't Get It Either

More on the Tennessee house fire. From HotAir:

I’m guessing 95 percent of our commenters will say, “Right on, let it burn. A contract’s a contract!” And yet 95 percent of those same people, upon finding themselves at the scene with a hose and a truck full of water, would have done the moral thing and tried to put it out notwithstanding the free-rider problem created by the Cranicks.

This is nonsense on stilts. I have no moral obligation to protect the property of others. If I see a neighbor's car being stolen I am under no obligation try to stop it. I do have a duty to report crimes to the police, but if the car gets destroyed before the cops arrive that does not mean I've failed a moral obligation.

If you want your personal property protected then it is incumbent upon you to provide for said protection. Period.

The homeowner in this case played roulette with his home and lost. And he (now) knows it.

“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.

So, if the Cranick family is now impoverished because of this fire (and I haven't even heard if he bothered to pay for insurance), there is only one person to blame and it isn't the firefighters.

Conservatives will often claim they want to live in a society where people are expected and encouraged to look after themselves, but if that is to mean anything it has to mean that people will bear the consequences for their foolish choices. "Protecting" people from their choices isn't treating them like adults, its treating them like children. Bailing everyone out only encourages more people to act irresponsibly. It is the slow path to infantilizing a nation.

The Democrats Want Your Money: All Of It

First they started taking about "nationalizing" people's 401(k)'s, now they want to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. From QandO:

You crank up Turbo Tax and you begin doing your taxes. About half way through, the sweat is beginning to form on your upper lip. You wonder, after all that’s been withheld during the year, how you could owe what TT says you owe at the top of the screen.

Then you get to the deduction phase and you plug in your mortgage interest deduction. Suddenly your angst disappears. The amount owed tumbles, in fact, it might even go in a positive direction. Thanks goodness.

Well, Bunky, if the President’s commission on have their way, that sweaty upper lip will be a permanent fixture for your tax preparation work day. They don’t like it, they’d rather eliminate it than any spending, and they’re talking about doing away with it:

And now that sentiment has turned against all the federal red ink — and cost-cutting is in vogue — Democrats on President Barack Obama’s financial commission are considering the wisdom of permanent tax breaks such as the mortgage deduction and corporate deferral. Calling them “tax entitlements,” senior Democratic lawmakers have argued they should be on the table for reform just like traditional entitlement programs Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

I can’t imagine a more unpopular thing to do for a citizenry and electorate that already feels hard pressed when it comes to taxes. And comparisons with the taxation levels in other countries really has no bearing, since it is the level of taxation the citizens of this country are willing to bear that matters. And they’ve made it plain that they feel they pay plenty in that department.

First off, Social Security and Medicare are not "entitlement" programs, they are social insurance programs, which is the reason why there is a separate FICA withholding from everyone's paycheck. Entitlements are means tested payments, while social insurance benefits are determined by the payments we make into them. To treat Social Security as if it were the government giving everyone charity is simply false. However, pro=government thugs want to dispense with such legal niceties and make everything income tax and thus make everyone beholden to the Federal government. They want power, as usual.

Which, of course, is the reason why they are turning against the idea of home ownership for average Americans as well. It used to be we valued the ability of Americans to be self-sufficient, at least as an ideal. Thomas Jefferson held up the model of the yeoman farmer, a self-sufficient individual who took care of himself and, when dire circumstance called, defended the country as a citizen soldier. An integral part of such a vision was the idea that the citizen would own property including his own home.

This ideal is, of course, a difficult one to realize universally, but the incentives in the tax code were put in place to make it more of a reality than it otherwise might have been. This is a reality which is anathema to the current "liberal" understanding which no longer believes in the abilities of average Americans to be free upstanding citizens. To the new overlords, the average American is something like a wild untamable but fundamentally weak beast which must be managed, much like a herd of bison. If people begin to believe they can and should look after themselves, well, that is the great danger for this view. It threatens everything the Democrats hold sacred. Namely power.

Now This Is Just Stupid

Really, the witch hunt atmosphere emanating from Washington is getting to be a little much: Backlash sinks Wells Fargo junket

Wells Fargo & Co. abruptly canceled a pricey Las Vegas casino junket for employees Tuesday after a torrent of criticism that it was misusing $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money.

The company initially defended the trip after The Associated Press reported it had booked 12 nights beginning Friday at the Wynn Las Vegas and the Encore Las Vegas. But within hours, investigators and lawmakers on Capitol Hill had scorned the bank.

Alright, I'm calling bullshit. Yes, firms that went with begging hat in hand to feed out of the public trough can be fairly criticized, but Wells Fargo isn't one of those companies. As has been reported, they were forced by the federal government to participate in the TARP foolishness.

"During the discussion, the most animated response came from Wells Fargo (WFC) Chairman Richard Kovacevich, say people present. Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks? Morgan Stanley (MS) Chief Executive John Mack, whose company was among the most vulnerable in the group to the swirling financial crisis, quickly signed.

Bank of America's (BAC) Kenneth Lewis acknowledged the obvious, that everyone at the table would participate. "Any one of us who doesn't have a healthy fear of the unknown isn't paying attention," he said."

It continues:

"Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers. After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion.

If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around."

Essentially this is like Don Corleone "making the banks an offer they can't refuse". The message was "make me your partner now, if you don't and need me down the road, we will crush you".

No one can claim that Wells Fargo has been anything other than a good and solid company. They did not expose themselves to the insane risks a lot of the other companies did, and so they shouldn't be treated now as if they had done something wrong.

Indeed, they did the American people a favor by buying what remained of Wachovia back when Citigroup was attempting to buy it with taxpayers footing the bill. Additionally, Wells Fargo made money this year. If they want to treat their employees well as a bonus for their hard and profitable work, what is wrong with that? Besides, why should the Wynn Hotel & Casino be deprived of its business? Are the people there unworthy of keeping their jobs? Well, if we make it impossible for businesses to book events like this lots of people will be laid off.

In the end, we don't need the neo-Puritans in Washington telling Americans what is "morally acceptable."

Obama: $97,000 = Rich

First it was $250,000.

Then it was $200,000.

After that it was $150,000.

Except for when it was $120,000.

Or is it $97,000.

Pauperizing America: Part Two

Bonnie Erbe sees this as the rebirth of the Republican party:

Yes, too many Americans (unfortunately, in my view) want nationalized healthcare. Yes, they want Social Security to be made fiscally sound. But do they want Daddy Government to reach this far into their beloved 401(k) retirement plans and wreak fiscal havoc? Methinks not.
...

Puh-leeze, just how stupid do Democrats think each one of us is? I can see it now, President Obama and the "tax and spenders" in Congress will seize victory and turn it immediately into disaster by raising taxes, reinstating the inheritance tax, and nationalizing healthcare. (OK, I won't call it "socialized" healthcare.) Thereby they will catapult middle-income Americans and independent voters into a speed run back into the GOP camp—a re-creation of the so-called Reagan Democrats of the 1980s. Didn't they learn from their congressional losses in 1994? Didn't they learn from having to swallow eight years of the most incompetent White House governance we've ever seen (George W., that is.) Apparently not. In fact, apparently not at all.

The Democrats zeal for power will be their undoing. And it will be sickening to see all those dolts who complained about the Patriot Act (while being unable to point to a single instance of its misuse), who will sit back and applaud while the Democrats attempt to get their greedy little paws on the billions hard working Americans have managed to save for their retirement.

The most amazing thing is they are so drunk with the prospect of success next Tuesday that they don't even bother to hide it anymore.

The Democrats Plan To Pauperize America

Really, there is no other word for it: Why Democrats Will Target the Investor Class in 2009

There are at least two pretty effective ways to turn someone into a Republican: (1) get them married with kids and (2) get them to invest in the stock market. So, if I were a highly paid Democratic political strategist, I would make sure to spend a few minutes every day thinking of ways to get Americans out of the stock market—the faster, the better. And that's why if Barack Obama is elected president next week, 2009 may well bring a concerted and all-out effort by the Obama administration and a Democratically dominated Congress to turn the generally pro-Republican Investor Class into an endangered class by, among other tactics, raising investment taxes and ending the tax preferences for 401(k)'s, IRAs, and other retirement accounts. Here is the emerging battle plan for Operation Investor Class Rollback:

1) Hike Investment Taxes. Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes even though he has kinda, sorta admitted that it might be bad for the economy and might actually decrease tax revenue to the government. For now, he's talking about raising the highest cap gains rate by one third to 20 percent, though earlier in the campaign, he floated pushing it as high as 28 percent, a near doubling....

2) Eliminate 401(k)'s, IRAs, and other retirement plans. Democrats in the House are now talking openly about the longtime liberal dream of repealing the tax advantages of putting money into a 401(k) plan or other tax-advantaged retirement account....

Not only would removing the preferential tax treatment of these vehicles raise investment taxes by $100 billion a year and affect Americans making less than $100,000, it would surely prompt many Americans, already shell-shocked by the market's recent losses, to flee stocks. All this ignores the fact that there are trillions of dollars in American retirement accounts, and abandoning the higher-returning stock market at a probable bottom is classic financial foolishness. If you believe long term in the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. If you don't, then you have to admit the government won't be able to afford its promises anyway.

3) Replace private capital with public capital. But wouldn't a weak stock market hurt the economy by making it tougher to raise investment capital and lessen the return on risk? Surely, it would. But Obama is planning hundreds of billions of dollars of government "investment" in cutting-edge technology, particularly in the energy and healthcare sectors....

Fundamentally this is all designed for a single purpose, to make Americans beholden to, and dependant upon the state. The goal would be to make those with a middle class income unable to provide for their own retirement, or otherwise to direct the financial direction of their own lives.

The goal is also to limit social mobility. As the piece makes clear the trouble with people getting wealthier, from a Democratic point of view, is that they become more Republican. But if you are able to create a new class who feel the only way to have a middle class lifestyle is to have the government guarantee it for you, paid for by the pocketbooks of the rich 5%, then you will have permanent Democrats.

However, this fantasy is just that, a fantasy. There is no way 5% of Americans can pay for a middle class life for the other 95%. So, if you are anywhere in the top 50% of wage earners they are coming for your money next.

If you don't think this is Socialism then that only proves you don't know the meaning of the word.

"Democracy Should Never Be Sacrificed"

So says George McGovern...and good for him!

An Open Question...A Sadly Open Question.

The question is: Does an American have a right to make a living? It turns out the answer is kinda "no." American Dream on a Spike

Alan Merrifield doesn't believe in pesticides. He thinks they're dangerous, ineffective and bad for the environment. In any case, he doesn't deal with bugs. He helps people keep common pests like raccoons and birds away from their homes, using only traps, screens and spikes.

Nonetheless, state bureaucrats insist that the 68-year-old Merrifield — who already holds five state pest control licenses — needs another license, called a "Branch 2 License," before he can install spikes on buildings to keep pigeons away. To get such a license, one must spend two years learning how to handle pesticides — pesticides Merrifield doesn't use — and then take a 200-question multiple-choice examination … which does not contain a single question about spikes or pigeons.

It gets worse. The law only applies to people who work on pigeon, mouse or rat problems. In other words, someone who installs spikes on a bridge to keep seagulls from roosting there doesn't need a Branch 2 License. But install the same spikes on the same bridge to keep pigeons away, and you do. The penalties can amount to fines of $1,000 per violation and even jail time.

It turns out the licensing laws in this case were put in place by powerful private interests to protect their industry from competition. But certainly the state cannot act in such a manner legally, right? Wrong.

Unfortunately, the Merrifield case is an all too typical example of the abuse of occupational licensing to prevent fair economic competition. Such laws often bar honest Americans from earning a living and providing consumers with useful goods and services. As a result, the entrepreneurial spirit at the heart of American enterprise suffers, and the rule of law is transformed into a game where powerful companies can exploit legislatures for their own benefit.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens noted 20 years ago, "private parties have used licensing to advance their own interests in restraining competition at the expense of the public interest."

Alas, thanks to the "rational basis scrutiny" that courts have applied to economic regulations, judges presume strongly against entrepreneurs like Merrifield. Plaintiffs are required to prove that there is no conceivable ground on which the law could be considered rational — that is, to prove a negative — before a court will protect their constitutionally protected right to earn a living.

The rational basis test was devised in a series of cases in the 1930s. The right to earn a living had been considered a fundamental part of the common law for more than three centuries before that — England's Chief Justice Edward Coke wrote in 1615 that "at the common law, no man could be prohibited from working in any lawful trade, for the law abhors idleness, the mother of all evil." But in the 1934 case of Nebbia v. New York, the justices held that from then on, courts would presume that economic regulations are constitutional except in the most extreme cases.

I'm no libertarian. I have no problem with the state regulating workplaces for health and safety concerns, but this situation touches on something more fundamental than that. The desire to protect vested interests from the perils that can come from innovation and entrepreneurship can do nothing but lead to an ossified society. If we are willing to "protect" the status quo of the pest control industry, what does that say about how far we would go in any other industry? Will the day come when the Microsoft empire will need to be "protected" from competition and the marketplace? (And some would say that day has come and gone already.)

It is a bad road to even begin to journey down.