Navigation

Tag Archives | Government

Oklahoma governor puts taxpayers’ money where her mouth is

By on April 15, 2011 in Announcements, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federal Funding, Federalism, Founding Principles, Health Care, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 4

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin just set an important precedent. By rejecting $54.6 million in federal money to begin implementation of ObamaCare, the governor has firmly set herself against the unconstitutional law and with the citizens of her state.

From Fox News:

To make it clear Oklahoma will develop its own plan, the state will not accept a $54.6 million federal grant for setting up a system where Oklahomans could shop for health insurance, Gov. Mary Fallin said Thursday.

Fallin said the state instead will use state and private money to form the system.

This is a step that advocates of nullification in many states have long sought. After all, it’s pretty obvious that threats of non-compliance with the feds are empty to the point of pathetic when state budgets still depend on grants of federal money (which is siphoned from their citizens to begin with).

However

Fallin’s announcement reverses her decision two months ago to accept the federal money.

Obviously the governor is bowing to some form of public pressure. In this age of  rampant and flagrant TSA molestation, it’s nice to see that pressure can still occasionally be successfully applied to public servants.

Perhaps other states whose legislatures have passed a version of the Health Care Freedom Act should consider following Oklahoma’s example.

Continue Reading 4

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

By on March 7, 2011 in Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 1

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed.

From NetRightDaily:

“State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use,” Bill Wilson the President of Americans for Limited Government said.

“The basic concept of the bill is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent light bulbs,” said State Representative Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

Their bill (H. 3735) is essentially a version of the Firearms Freedom Acts and Intrastate Commerce Acts that have been popping up all over the country. Essentially, any light bulb manufactured and sold exclusively in South Carolina would not be subject to federal regulation.

Which is already the case, but it never hurts to repeat the obvious for emphasis when dealing with a government as corrupt and insular as the one in Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading 1

Why Tenthers are Projected as Extreme and What We can do about It

By on October 18, 2010 in Economics 4

If our Movement revels in its maverick persona, then, we will remain divisive.  In sports, divisive is fun.   In politics, divisive is fun, but if we are sincere in our desire to win over the population, then, we need to take the sport out of it.

There are certain pitches in our message which water down our cause.  In fact, we know this to be true because we admit our cause is all but lost.   We cannot convince enough people to respect our cause, and so we have concluded that nullification is the appropriate strategy.   Perhaps it is, but we should still continue to bring about a mainstream movement, rather than a marginalized, disobedient one.

Why are we marginalized?   It is fairly easy to see why.  Despite the many reasons to complain about the state of our nation, most of us would have to admit that life here is far more preferable than most any other nation in the world.   We are so lucky to be here, and we should not take our system entirely for granted.  Most moderates and independents would probably tend to agree with this. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 4

A Doorway to Hell

By on September 27, 2010 in Liberty 2

In an earlier article for this website I’ve written about the non-coercion principle and how it is connected to individual liberty and morality itself. I laid out the reasons why moral rules that we hold dear are really products of individual liberty by using the imagery from Lord of the Rings. It was a little fun but I was not attempting to belittle the reader’s intelligence but to illustrate that the cause of all evil is the violation of the non-coercion principle which really is an assumption of power over other people.

Think of the worst act a human being can do to another which is rape. This is a crime in every culture but the difference between rape and sex is the non-coercion principle. Sex is a voluntary act between two willing people but rape is an involuntary act. The physical act does not change itself since it is intercourse as defined by medicine but the difference is free-will. Two people who engage in sex have free-will and each other’s consent to do it but rape is an absence of consent of one person. What made it a moral crime against another person was not the act itself since the act is essentially the same in both situations but more an absence of free-will. The absence of free-will made it an act of evil since there was none.

Not only does this rule apply to that situation but it also applies in all other situations where human beings interact with each other. The act of theft is no different than the act of trade since it involves the movement of one person’s property to another. The only difference is the absence of free-will. A person who exchanges their property with another does so freely of their own free-will. They may do this for charitable reasons or to get something that someone else has but whatever the reason is it is always done in accordance with their free-will. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 2

Has Congress Become Useless?

By on August 20, 2010 in Congress 1

Gene Healy writes:

Has Congress become “a useless appendix on the governmental structure”? That was what then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. J. William Fulbright, D-Ark., feared in 1968, according to newly released transcripts from the committee’s closed-session debates over Vietnam. Unless Congress was willing to assert itself on the war, he said, “I do not see how we have any real function.”
Last week found Congress once again doing a good imitation of a vestigial organ, as the House forked over $37 billion more for our endless Afghan adventure. Maybe if we called it “armed community organizing” instead of “nation building,” more Republicans would be against it.

It’s “not just the president’s war,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., protested. “It’s our war too. … We must not simply kick the can down the road.”

Alas, legislative can kicking is what the modern Congress does best. Take the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” bill the president just signed. It’s a 2,300-page PR exercise that delegates everything and settles nothing. Lenders and investors wondering what’s legal will have to await some 243 rulemakings from 11 different agencies.

click here to read the rest

Continue Reading 1

Servants or Masters?

By on August 3, 2010 in Big Government 1

I am an American.  I am a disabled Vietnam veteran.  I mention that for a couple of reasons.  Being a veteran has deeply magnified my appreciation to live in the greatest country in the world.  As a veteran I did take an oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the greatest country in the world and as such, I find it unacceptable to expect anything less from any elected representative that also takes an oath to serve and protect the Constitution.

In the beginning almighty God created the heavens and the earth.  After a break he created the People.  The People eventually created the 13 original colonies that became States.  The States then created the Federal government and gave it specific enumerated powers to serve the People and protect their freedom.

You may ask, where does our freedom come from?  Well if you were Thomas Jefferson you would answer…”Our freedom comes from our humanity.  In that we are created in the image and likeness of God, who is perfectly free, so then are we to be perfectly free.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 1

Should the Government Promote Fishing?

By on May 17, 2010 in Big Government, Uncategorized 1

A Cato essay on special-interest spending explains how many federal programs deliver subsidies to particular groups of individuals and businesses while harming taxpayers and damaging the overall economy. A major reason why spending has spun out of control in Washington is that thousands of special interest groups have secured a slice of the spending pie, and they fight tooth and nail to make sure policymakers keep baking.

As the essay explains, taxpaying citizens are almost powerless to stop these subsidies:

At the same time, average citizens do not have a strong incentive to battle against particular subsidies because each program costs just a small part of their total tax bill. Besides, when average citizens do speak out against particular programs, they are outgunned by the paid professionals who defend each program. These professionals are experts at the complex features of programs, and they are skilled at generating media support for their causes. One technique they use is to cloak the private interests of subsidy recipients in public interest clothing—for example, they often proclaim that increased funding is essentially to the nation’s well-being.

As a fisherman, I became aware of a federal program targeted at one of my recreational pastimes. Buried in the Interior Department’s budget is a program funded with federal taxes collected on the sale of motorboat fuel and excise taxes paid by manufacturers of fishing tackle. A non-profit organization called the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation is then granted the money to use in promoting fishing.

The RBFF receives around $14 million a year, 13 percent of which is spent on staff salaries and benefits. The latest annual report claims that its activities have generated $25 million in sales for the boating and fishing industries since 2007.

The idea for this program was hatched in the 1990s because recreational boating and fishing participation wasn’t keep up with general population growth in the United States. Federal, state, and industry officials got together and decided that a “national theme” was necessary to increase participation. And surprise, another government program was born.

But as a trade publication points out, the promise of increased participation hasn’t materialized:

The Foundation has received funding of almost $80 million in that time, courtesy of federal excise taxes paid on fishing and boating by manufacturers and importers, while the number of adult anglers fell by over a million.

I’ve been fishing all of my life, so I support the sport’s growth (as long as newcomers stay away from my favorite spots!). However, if the fishing and boating industry wants to promote its activities, it should pay for it itself. The excise tax is paid by manufacturers of fishing tackle, but then they simply pass the burden on to consumers. Besides, it makes little sense to set up a costly bureaucratic tax and spending scheme to benefit a private industry.

Maybe kids should be playing more board games instead of video games since board games are more family-friendly. Should the board game industry lobby Congress to create a program promoting board games? Maybe kids should get more involved with outdoor activities like hiking or mountain biking. Should the outdoor equipment industry get a federal program encouraging kids to take up those activities?

Unfortunately, our nation is increasingly becoming a nanny state. Government officials want to control what food we eat, what cars we drive, and now what hobbies we pursue. What made this country great was individuals freely pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, not the ways decided on by politicians in Washington.

cross-posted from DownsizingGovernment.org

Continue Reading 1

A few questions for the left

By on April 13, 2010 in Big Government 6
  1. Have you ever read the entire U.S Constitution?
  2. Do you believe the constitution is still relevant today?
  3. Why is it OK for the government to take one families hard earned labor to give to someone else?
  4. How much money is too much? Who should decide how much is too much?
  5. What level of federal taxation is enough to “level the playing field”?
  6. What is “leveling the playing field”?
  7. What advantages have successful people had that makes them a target to be punished with additional taxation?
  8. Will punishing successful people improve the ability of everyone else to be successful?
  9. Are you happy with the government’s results to end poverty and improve lives in Detroit, NY, LA, Newark, etc…?

Just curious…

Continue Reading 6

Californians Could Learn a Thing or Two From the Swiss

By on April 7, 2010 in Big Government, State Sovereignty 0

Examples of centralized control are spoken of frequently- Cuba, USSR and China are the most common.  While it is important to know what not to do as a people, it is even more important to study examples of decentralized nations and the practical benefits of limited, local governance.  Switzerland is one such place, as described by Richard Rahn in his new article for the Washington Times.  This is a must read- as it will provide you with valuable talking points to combat statist rhetoric.

-B

Learning From What Works

by Richard W. Rahn

ZURICH

Economists, political scientists, reporters and pundits spend too much of their time looking at dysfunctional societies and trying to explain why there are poverty, joblessness and hopelessness. In many ways, Haiti is easy to explain – no rule of law and 200 years of corrupt and incompetent governments. Switzerland is the polar opposite. It has almost no corruption and has the rule of law with honest, competent judges and government administrators. The question should be, “What can we learn from the Switzerlands of the world about how to do things right” rather than, “What is wrong with the Haitis of the world?” Switzerland manages to run a smaller government as a share of gross domestic product than the United States and most other countries while providing a higher level of service, security, prosperity and freedom. How does it do that?

In many ways, Switzerland seems unlikely to be such a long-term global success story. It is a small country with religious and language differences; nevertheless, the Swiss have managed to live peaceably together for a long time. It has few natural resources, yet it has managed to have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. It has a world-class health care system, which is privately run. Health care insurance is subsidized, and everyone has access regardless of income, but there is no “public option.”

Switzerland is not perfect, but it is clean, prosperous, well-managed, pleasant, humane and very free. In the more than three decades I have been coming to Switzerland, I have been convinced that the United States and the rest of the world can learn from many things the Swiss have done. The Swiss are practical rather than ideological, but they do revere liberty. They protect private property and free markets and restrain themselves from rampant deficit spending. The Swiss maintain a sound currency, which has been rising against the euro, dollar and pound. Capital, goods and services, with few exceptions, move freely into and out of the country.

Long ago, the Swiss understood that most things government needs to do and constructively does are at the local level. So, unlike in most modern nation-states…

click here to read more

Continue Reading 0