I have, in the past, cited examples of failed representation, particularly in the arena of taxation. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a “climate change bill”, that was largely composed of a Cap and Trade policy. Most of our “representatives”, did not even read the bill, certainly not the over 300 page amendment added to it less than two days before the vote. Is that really representation? Are we to be represented by a bunch of people who will not even inform themselves concerning the legislation they pass? Are we paying taxes that our representatives passed but were unaware of the details? Apparently so.

Continue Reading »

Any of you who have followed any of my writing know that I am no fan of the Cap and Trade concept. I find it abhorrent that it even made it to a vote. Unfortunately it looks as though it is likely to pass, despite the outcry of the public, at least the productive public, against it.

Cap and trade represents the largest overall tax increase in our history. It will hit everyone who uses fuel or buys products from companies that use fuel. That means everyone in the country. That means rich and poor. That mean Obama’s talk about not increasing taxes on anyone but the rich is an absolute lie. Suprised?

Continue Reading »

The term Czar is originally a Slavic term for Monarchs, indicating both dictatorial rule and carrying with it at least a connotation of royalty. According to our Constitution, no Citizen can be given a title of nobility or position of royalty. Certainly the original definition is not applicable here, but the connotations remain, particularly the connotation of dictator. At the very least, the rash of “Czar” appointments represents a consolidation of power. It is being sold as a move towards efficiency, which seems good on the surface, but there is a certain amount of inefficiency that is needed in government.

Continue Reading »

So, in part two of this subject, we will address more clearly the next steps, the mechanics of moving towards a more minimal and freedom supporting government. Clearly Social Security is not economically viable in its current state. Regardless of the intentions, if a system is bound to fall apart and fail the people who depend on it, then it is not a compassionate concept. Alternatively, it is both politically impossible and ethically harsh to simply pull the plug. So, that leaves us with determining the best way to move in the direction we need.

Continue Reading »

Social Security. An idea that sounds really good when you look at its purpose. It is designed to remove or reduce the risks of life, particularly the known hardships that come with old age, disability, loss of income through no fault of one’s own, etc. It is essentially insurance. Like insurance, not everyone gets the same benefits. One person may never cash in on their insurance, another may get far more than they paid in. The problem is, we have no choices. We have no alternatives, there is no competitor for social security. We do not have the option to refuse insurance coverage. Worst of all, Social Security has grown in its benefits and expense to the point that it will not even be able to make good on its promises.

Continue Reading »